What's wrong with ITTs ?

[movingtarget]

Obviously a lot of people did not want Leipheimer to win the Tour of Switzerland but I did not hear anyone say that the final TT was boring.

 

[webvan]

Exactly, like the one in 2004 when Ullrich beat Jekker for 1 second! Besides Leppy won the TDS thanks to his little "attack" in Malbum. The point Pescheux and Co are ignoring is that ITTs give more balance to the races.

 

[movingtarget]

Exactly, like the one in 2004 when Ullrich beat Jekker for 1 second! Besides Leppy won the TDS thanks to his little "attack" in Malbum. The point Pescheux and Co are ignoring is that ITTs give more balance to the races.

Or Lemond, Fignon battle or 2007 Evans, Contador, Leipheimer fighting it out. Or Moser (helicopter assisted ?) against Fignon. Plenty of interesting TT's.

 

[Lanark]

It doesn't look too good for your case that you have to come up with some examples from the eighties of interesting time trials

I thought people were arguing that there should be more middle-of-the-week time trials, which all of those Tour de Suisse examples aren't of course (and that time trial doesn't always cause an interesting race, think of the Karpets one, where he finished 6th in the time trial, had probably 5 seconds of screen time during the entire race, and suddenly won, or the Cancellara one, where you didn't have to watch the race to see who won).

There are probably more big races this year that got boring due to the time trial than otherwise (Paris-Nice, Romandie, Dauphine (where any climber who could challenge was at an insurmountable distance back after the ITT)), and if you want a more long term perspective just think of all the Armstrong and Indurain tours that often were decided before the first mountain appeared. The reason those races were boring was because they have too much ITT kilometers, creating gaps that can't be bridged in the mountains except in the most extreme circumstances (Les Deux Alpes 1998), adding significantly more time trial kilometers would result in the same in the Tour.

 

[movingtarget]

It doesn't look too good for your case that you have to come up with some examples from the eighties of interesting time trials

I thought people were arguing that there should be more middle-of-the-week time trials, which all of those Tour de Suisse examples aren't of course (and that time trial doesn't always cause an interesting race, think of the Karpets one, where he finished 6th in the time trial, had probably 5 seconds of screen time during the entire race, and suddenly won, or the Cancellara one, where you didn't have to watch the race to see who won).

There are probably more big races this year that got boring due to the time trial than otherwise (Paris-Nice, Romandie, Dauphine (where any climber who could challenge was at an insurmountable distance back after the ITT)), and if you want a more long term perspective just think of all the Armstrong and Indurain tours that often were decided before the first mountain appeared. The reason those races were boring was because they have too much ITT kilometers, creating gaps that can't be bridged in the mountains except in the most extreme circumstances (Les Deux Alpes 1998), adding significantly more time trial kilometers would result in the same in the Tour.

I mentioned those as some of the more dramatic ones. I just think that at the moment the TT/mountains could be better balanced without having the need for two 50 km TT's plus a team time trial. Mixing it up regularly. The only reason Indurain and Armstrong Tours were dull was that they were such dominant TT riders and great climbers. Take out Martin and Cancellara there is no GC rider at the moment than can time trial as well as Big Mig and Armstrong. Contador would be the closest and it's daylight for second. Evans on his old TT form maybe or Menchov.

 

[red_flanders]

Not only have the GTs got rid of one of the ITTs, but they've kept the one that offers the least advantage to the roulers GT contenders: the last one. If we have a look at the gaps in the first and the last ITTs over history we'll see the gaps were significantly bigger in the first one, since everyone was fresher and powerful riders could turn on their engines and impose a huge blow on the climbers, who, and here's the important part, were forced to ATTACK in the mountains, and not in the last kms, but far from the finish, therefore lengthening the spectacle.

Great stuff.

 

[hfer07]

There are probably more big races this year that got boring due to the time trial than otherwise (Paris-Nice, Romandie, Dauphine (where any climber who could challenge was at an insurmountable distance back after the ITT)), and if you want a more long term perspective just think of all the Armstrong and Indurain tours that often were decided before the first mountain appeared. The reason those races were boring was because they have too much ITT kilometers, creating gaps that can't be bridged in the mountains except in the most extreme circumstances (Les Deux Alpes 1998), adding significantly more time trial kilometers would result in the same in the Tour.

I disagree- and the main reason is that nowadays all GT riders are more climbers than roullers & TTers-therefore they have forgotten to apply discipline to one of the most important aspects of modern cycling-the TT skills. the examples you mentioned are the real proof that TT must be taken seriously by those who attempt to win a Tour- that's why riders like ASchleck, Gesink, JVDB will never have a chance to get closer to Contador, unless they give the proper care to that area. So i'd say-put more ITT so some riders will finally get the picture..

 

[Pantani_lives]

With a big ITT in the first week riders like A Schleck, Basso, Gesink and VDB could be three minutes behind Contador before they have seen the first mountain. The race organizers want the Tour to be decided in the third week.

I would like to see a short ITT in the first week, a mountain ITT in the second, and a long one at the end.

 

[luckyboy]

Less ITT kms in the smaller stage races, where the whole race can just be decided by them.

The current ITT kms in GTs is enough I think.

 

[benpounder]

I would gladly accept a longish first or second week ITT if they would get rid of those pointless prologues. Or how about a Crit International style two part stage?

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

I would gladly accept a longish first or second week ITT if they would get rid of those pointless prologues. Or how about a Crit International style two part stage?

Sorry. The Giro tried to do that. The riders were not tough enough to do two short stages in a day, so they complained like sissies.

 

[movingtarget]

I would gladly accept a longish first or second week ITT if they would get rid of those pointless prologues. Or how about a Crit International style two part stage?

Prologues are not very exciting. More tradition than anything else. Glad to see it gone this year.

 

[webvan]

And Pescheux made an interesting point there actually, saying that there were only 10 riders that could win the prologue when "any" rider could win the first stage. Fair point, unlike what he said about the "useless" middle ITT!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Agree with Descender from a couple pages back.

I'd like to see at least one Tour in the next couple years go back to one like the Indurain years when there were nearly 300km total. I'd like to see two very long ITT's, a fairly long TTT, and a medium uphill TT in the middle. While it stands to reason Contador TT's well enough to handle this, if someone such as Evans old form, or Menchov (or Martin? Or someone on the near horizon) could make up big amounts of time in the TT's, Contador would have to attack them in the mountains, and not just in the last 3km like we too often see.

 

[dsut4392]

Agree with Descender from a couple pages back.

I'd like to see at least one Tour in the next couple years go back to one like the Indurain years when there were nearly 300km total. I'd like to see two very long ITT's, a fairly long TTT, and a medium uphill TT in the middle. While it stands to reason Contador TT's well enough to handle this, if someone such as Evans old form, or Menchov (or Martin? Or someone on the near horizon) could make up big amounts of time in the TT's, Contador would have to attack them in the mountains, and not just in the last 3km like we too often see.

+1.

About time the GT overall was about more than just "who is the best climber?". We need something to open up the field a bit, and ITT's seem to me a fairer option than dangerous cobbled sections or loads of 'street furniture' (Giro last year) to promote crashes and splits in the bunch (as entertaining as these are, there is already too much whining from riders about how it wasn't their fault and "nobody waited").

Too many mountain stages have become (at least for the GC contenders) as dull as a flat sprint stage, with a tedious procession for 199 km and 1km of racing. Give me a battle royale between the contenders not some nonsense trackstand poker.

 

[Lanark]

I disagree- and the main reason is that nowadays all GT riders are more climbers than roullers & TTers-therefore they have forgotten to apply discipline to one of the most important aspects of modern cycling-the TT skills. the examples you mentioned are the real proof that TT must be taken seriously by those who attempt to win a Tour- that's why riders like ASchleck, Gesink, JVDB will never have a chance to get closer to Contador, unless they give the proper care to that area. So i'd say-put more ITT so some riders will finally get the picture..

Wait, are you suggesting that guys like Schleck, Gesink et al. don't train their TT because it's not worth it because of the lack of ITT kilometers in the Tour? Most of those guys are super proffesionals (well, maybe outside Schleck) who give up everything for cycling, sleep in altitude tents, move to other countries for better training possibilities, jump into ice-baths after races to improve recupperation etc., but are somehow too lazy too train their time trial because they are content to lose 6 minutes?


A bit unrelated, but I would be a big proponent of banning time trial bikes. There is only one interesting aspect of time trialing, and that's the battle of the athlete against himself, who has to push himself as far as he can. But current time trials are almost completely about aerodynamics, someone shouldn't have a big advantage because his body happens to fit better on a bike that's defined by some fairly arbitrary rules imposed by the UCI.

 

[Cimber]

Prologues are not very exciting. More tradition than anything else. Glad to see it gone this year.

Disagree. The prologue serves a good purpose which is distributing the jerseys, making some amall time gaps, letting ppl get the initial excitement and nervousness out of the system = fewer crashes in the following days. I fear that we will see alot of crashes saturday,

 

[Bike Boy]

Wait, are you suggesting that guys like Schleck, Gesink et al. don't train their TT because it's not worth it because of the lack of ITT kilometers in the Tour? Most of those guys are super proffesionals (well, maybe outside Schleck) who give up everything for cycling, sleep in altitude tents, move to other countries for better training possibilities, jump into ice-baths after races to improve recupperation etc., but are somehow too lazy too train their time trial because they are content to lose 6 minutes?


A bit unrelated, but I would be a big proponent of banning time trial bikes. There is only one interesting aspect of time trialing, and that's the battle of the athlete against himself, who has to push himself as far as he can. But current time trials are almost completely about aerodynamics, someone shouldn't have a big advantage because his body happens to fit better on a bike that's defined by some fairly arbitrary rules imposed by the UCI.

I disagree. You can't ban time trial bikes because some riders are more fexible than others. As long as the advantage is due to athletic abilities I think it's perfectly all right.
Some riders have bigger lungs and hearts than others. Do you want to ban them as well?

I Also don't think time trials are almost completely about aerodynamics. At least 3 elements are important: Aerodynamic, Power and mentality.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Disagree. The prologue serves a good purpose which is distributing the jerseys, making some amall time gaps, letting ppl get the initial excitement and nervousness out of the system = fewer crashes in the following days. I fear that we will see alot of crashes saturday,

I agree with your disagree, for the reasons above and because it serves as an introduction to the riders.

 

[movingtarget]

Disagree. The prologue serves a good purpose which is distributing the jerseys, making some amall time gaps, letting ppl get the initial excitement and nervousness out of the system = fewer crashes in the following days. I fear that we will see alot of crashes saturday,

Dunno about fewer crashes after riding 5kms. The first week is usually full of crashes until the riders start to tire and get the initial nervousness out of their system. They would only have to do countbacks to distribute the jerseys if the first few stages were bunch finishes but this year the Team TT sorts that out. Admittedly it would be a lot messier than having small time gaps re Prologue.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

I agree with your disagree, for the reasons above and because it serves as an introduction to the riders.

Before the director ofTour de France was hit with the stupid stick, there were time bonuses for stages. The prologue separated the sprinters and set up a battle in the first week for the yellow jersey. Now there is no reason for riders other than the GC hopefuls and potential prologue winners to put any effort into the prologue.

I agree with getting rid of time trial bikes. I would be in favor of one bike being used for the entire race, although there would be issues with crashing and mechanicals that would have to be worked out.

 

[hfer07]

Wait, are you suggesting that guys like Schleck, Gesink et al. don't train their TT because it's not worth it because of the lack of ITT kilometers in the Tour? Most of those guys are super proffesionals (well, maybe outside Schleck) who give up everything for cycling, sleep in altitude tents, move to other countries for better training possibilities, jump into ice-baths after races to improve recupperation etc., but are somehow too lazy too train their time trial because they are content to lose 6 minutes?

never said their interest for ITT skills are diminished by the length of current ITT in the TDF-My comment is clear-especially about the Schleck: they just don't have a full commitment to improve in that area-and it has been said endless times back when Bobby Jullich was coaching them to work harder on that area-they just don't take this area seriously enough-even he went further by criticizing Andy very harsh for that terrible ITT, which for many appeared to be a good one, since Contador performed so poorly but in reality was a total disaster-even Bruyneel himself commented on that too.
I might back off on Gesink, whose ITT skills have been improved lately, so he "understands" the importance of being good at that discipline, the other ones?
VDV2, Purito, Anton & many others with good prospects to win a GT will fall short unless they get to work very hard in the TT department

A bit unrelated, but I would be a big proponent of banning time trial bikes. There is only one interesting aspect of time trialing, and that's the battle of the athlete against himself, who has to push himself as far as he can. But current time trials are almost completely about aerodynamics, someone shouldn't have a big advantage because his body happens to fit better on a bike that's defined by some fairly arbitrary rules imposed by the UCI.

ohh dear.....

 

[VeloCity]

I love ITT's and think they should definitely be part of GT's, but I'd prefer that they be kept relatively short and relatively inconsequential toward GC. Totally my preference, but I'd rather see the top guys battling it out in the mountains than to have an Indurain or Armstrong or Contador already with a 3-minute lead thanks to the ITT going into the mountains.

 

[icefire]

Agree with Descender from a couple pages back.

I'd like to see at least one Tour in the next couple years go back to one like the Indurain years when there were nearly 300km total. I'd like to see two very long ITT's, a fairly long TTT, and a medium uphill TT in the middle. While it stands to reason Contador TT's well enough to handle this, if someone such as Evans old form, or Menchov (or Martin? Or someone on the near horizon) could make up big amounts of time in the TT's, Contador would have to attack them in the mountains, and not just in the last 3km like we too often see.

That could work if the mountain stages were more than 200 kms long and had 3 or more serious climbs, like the one Nieve won in last Giro. You may check the mileage of the mountain stages in those years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Tour_de_France#Stages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Tour_de_France#Stages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Tour_de_France#Stages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Tour_de_France#Stages

Unfortunately, I guess that 3 consecutive mountain stages over 240kms as they had in 1992 would be impossible today with the current UCI regulations on stage races.

 

[Wergeland]

Surely it should be possible to use GPS technology, more split times, more split screen views etc to make ITTs more compelling TV.

Instead we get commentators basically guessing how fast someone is going and backing up their guesses with useless verbiage about body language and cadence.

+ 1.

Since most tv of cycling is regular mass start racing, they just don't know how to make good tv of ITTs. They have a lot to learn from biathlon and cross-country skiing production. At them moment tv-coverage of ITTs in PT-stage races are about the same level as cross country skiing in the late seventies.