TdF Stage 17 *Spoilers*

SpaceJunk

Moray Gub wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Next year will be my 25th Tour de France. Here's hoping it's better than the last few.

In that 25 there have been a few stinkers not just the last two, i reckon this years has been a huge dissapointment given the so called exciting parcours.

So you reckon the course sucked??


You know, there is a simple way to fix this issue of the Tour being such a boring race, with the stakes so high, strong teams etc. And it's quite a simple solution too.

Let's just get back to the original format of the tour.

Make the riders complete the 3,500 kms in 8 stages. Make them start at 1 am and finish 11 hours and 440 kms later.

No drafting aloud.

Mechanical problem? Tough tits, fix it yourself.

No domestiques, no help whatsoever from anyone.

And let's be honest here, sure they might climb the Tourmalet, Galibier etc, but they don't crest the highest part of the mountain. Invariably the road cuts into the mountain and goes up close to the top, but it doesn't really go over it. Therefore, make them ride OVER the mountain, even if it means a 75 % gradient on granite rock. That will test the boys out from the men.

And listen out to Contador as he screams Murderers just as he starts his absail down Col de Madeleine.

And stuff this time stuff. Let's goes back to the Desgrange points system where no one has any idea what's going on.

In fact, why don't we allow the ASO to make up how the leader board is determined as they go along. The suspense will be incredible.

Ohh, what an exciting race.

iainf72

Moray Gub wrote:

In that 25 there have been a few stinkers not just the last two, i reckon this years has been a huge dissapointment given the so called exciting parcours.

Quite right. I'm not an Armstrong fan but I can think of a couple of Armstrong wins that were much better value than the last 2 events.

Not all the races can be classics of course. But a lot of people on the forum seem to be of the opinion that you can't be critical or find it boring. I'd suggest a fan of the sport should feel comfortable being critical.

There are a large number of factors which come into play but at the end of the day, it wasn't a great event for me.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

In that 25 there have been a few stinkers not just the last two, i reckon this years has been a huge dissapointment given the so called exciting parcours.

Quite right. I'm not an Armstrong fan but I can think of a couple of Armstrong wins that were much better value than the last 2 events.

Not all the races can be classics of course. But a lot of people on the forum seem to be of the opinion that you can't be critical or find it boring. I'd suggest a fan of the sport should feel comfortable being critical.

There are a large number of factors which come into play but at the end of the day, it wasn't a great event for me.

The argument that the mega hard stages won't work because the peleton will ride tempo untill the final 5km doesn't fly for me. The Giro is the most obvious example.

Maybe with better equipment, less machoism about gears, the climbs in France just aren't steep enough to warrent the kind of racing we want anymore. I mean, the speed at which those guys climbed the Tourmalet boggles my mind. Only the likes of the Mortirollo or the Zoncalon seem to be tough enough to bring all but the best riders to their knees.

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

The argument that the mega hard stages won't work because the peloton will ride tempo untill the final 5km doesn't fly for me. The Giro is the most obvious example.

They need a hard block of stages. 3 in a row with mountains, 2 mountain top finishes and none of this 45km to the finish after the last climb nonsense.

Tuesdays stage reversed would've made for a great block of racing.

gabriel959

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

In that 25 there have been a few stinkers not just the last two, i reckon this years has been a huge dissapointment given the so called exciting parcours.

Quite right. I'm not an Armstrong fan but I can think of a couple of Armstrong wins that were much better value than the last 2 events.

Not all the races can be classics of course. But a lot of people on the forum seem to be of the opinion that you can't be critical or find it boring. I'd suggest a fan of the sport should feel comfortable being critical.

There are a large number of factors which come into play but at the end of the day, it wasn't a great event for me.

The argument that the mega hard stages won't work because the peloton will ride tempo untill the final 5km doesn't fly for me. The Giro is the most obvious example.

Maybe with better equipment, less machoism about gears, the climbs in France just aren't steep enough to warrent the kind of racing we want anymore. I mean, the speed at which those guys climbed the Tourmalet boggles my mind. Only the likes of the Mortirollo or the Zoncalon seem to be tough enough to bring all but the best riders to their knees.

And the Angliru And this year, La Bola del Mundo!!!

gabriel959

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The argument that the mega hard stages won't work because the peloton will ride tempo untill the final 5km doesn't fly for me. The Giro is the most obvious example.

They need a hard block of stages. 3 in a row with mountains, 2 mountain top finishes and none of this 45km to the finish after the last climb nonsense.

Tuesdays stage reversed would've made for a great block of racing.

I agree with that. More cobbled stages too, less focusing on top 10 or top 15. Time bonuses for 1st, 2nd and 3rd finishers too.

rick_chasey

Why not revert to '80s style tour, with 250km+ stages?

Test the tank as well as the engine.

knedlicky

SpaceJunk wrote:

Time Bonuses wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

Maybe not with the small time bonuses in your example, and which are about what were the bonuses last time they were used in the Tour, but it doesn't have to be such small bonuses.

In the 1932, the Tour used bonuses of 4 mins for the winner, 2 mins for second, 1 min for third on every stage. People often say the smallest winning margin In the Tour was the 8 secs of Lemond over Fignon, but in 1932 Leducq only won in reality by 3 secs, although in the record books his winning margin is shown as 24 mins 3 secs. This is because of all the bonuses Leducq picked up.

The following year, they reduced the bonuses to avoid this exaggeration but the bonuses actually played more of a role, in that the winner in real time only finished third in the final official classification.
Maybe bringing big bonuses back might therefore spark things up?

To discourage riders waiting until the end to attack, I'd also think about introducing intermediate time bonuses, like some races already have (e.g. Paris-Nice; Sanchez managed to get on the podium this year by picking up an intermediate bonus on the last day).
These could be given to the front riders crossing an earlier pass during a stage (and perhaps even on the last climb too, to the front riders when only a fifth of the way up).

FJS

The first week route this year was excellent, the second week was OK (not too heavy to keep it close for the third week; just like this year's Giro). The Pyrenees week lacked a proper tough stage with mountain top finish, but what really made the race dull was Contador's relatively passive racing, and that was because of that very long TT looming at the end. It's not the limitations of the mountain stages, but the long flat TT at the end that influenced the racing IMHO. Better a mountain TT and shorter final TT for instance, or flat TT halfway and mountain TT to finish with.

One problem is that the Pyrenees have a good number of tough climbs, but no Zoncolan-style climbs. Next year will be Alps first, Pyrenees second again

mididoctors

Rick Chasey wrote:

[

Maybe with better equipment, less machoism about gears, the climbs in France just aren't steep enough to warrent the kind of racing we want anymore. I mean, the speed at which those guys climbed the Tourmalet boggles my mind. Only the likes of the Mortirollo or the Zoncalon seem to be tough enough to bring all but the best riders to their knees.

the lack of gradient does appear to be a problem in designing a tour route

FJS

All that about the need for Zoncolan's and Angliru's being said, some of the best racing is on relatively modest climbs - take the Contador-Rasmussen duel, on the Peyresourde of all climbs

Kléber

It's because the riders are so close. I think you could put Contador and Schleck on the Angliru, Zoncolan or Everest and they'd probably still be close.

Sometimes we need to accept two riders can be as close.

iainf72

FJS wrote:

All that about the need for Zoncolan's and Angliru's being said, some of the best racing is on relatively modest climbs - take the Contador-Rasmussen duel, on the Peyresourde of all climbs

Indeed. I'm not convinced super steep climbs are needed. Yes, the Zoncolan was good in the Giro this year, but that last time wasn't that great.

You need to balance between a good show, toughness and the really chance for people to do something

The neutralisation of the stage to Spa may have had way more of an impact on the race than people realised. If it had continued being raced, Schleck would've been out of it, Menchov would've had a lead over Contador and the favourites would've been a bit spread out.

Kléber

The Giro works for me because you have smaller teams and smaller riders. They are more willing to take risks and it all makes the race more random and exciting. But the Tour has the best riders and they play it more defensively.

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

The Giro works for me because you have smaller teams and smaller riders. They are more willing to take risks and it all makes the race more random and exciting. But the Tour has the best riders and they play it more defensively.

^^^
This

Ben6899

AidanR wrote:

It was epic, so long as you have some understanding of cycling. If not, it just looked like 2 blokes riding next to each other in fog.

I think you may have identified one or two on here!

Awesome stage. Simply awesome. Those hairpins were b@stards!

blazing_saddles

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The argument that the mega hard stages won't work because the peloton will ride tempo untill the final 5km doesn't fly for me. The Giro is the most obvious example.

They need a hard block of stages. 3 in a row with mountains, 2 mountain top finishes and none of this 45km to the finish after the last climb nonsense.

Tuesdays stage reversed would've made for a great block of racing.

Yesterday, the slightly uphill, valley drags, ensured nothing would happen until the Tourmalet. Train territory.
Overcome the parcours and you have the conservatism of the current crop of DSs.

Tuesday's stage was the stage, along with Ax, that had the mountains set up, right, from either direction; one after another, with little or no flat.

Stick 60kms on the start, instead of the end and viola!
If they didn't launch a concerted, early attack off these parcours, then nothing much could be done.

Kléber wrote:

The Giro works for me because you have smaller teams and smaller riders. They are more willing to take risks and it all makes the race more random and exciting. But the Tour has the best riders and they play it more defensively.

This +1

iainf72

Ben6899 wrote:

AidanR wrote:

It was epic, so long as you have some understanding of cycling. If not, it just looked like 2 blokes riding next to each other in fog.

I think you may have identified one or two on here!

Seriously question : While the stage was on, did the folks who thought it was good believe one rider was likely to drop the other at some point?

SpaceJunk

knedlicky wrote:

SpaceJunk wrote:

Time Bonuses wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

Maybe not with the small time bonuses in your example, and which are about what were the bonuses last time they were used in the Tour, but it doesn't have to be such small bonuses.

So what, we determine the time bonuses AFTER the Tour finishes to make it close. It doesn't matter what they make the time bonuses, if they increase it to a minute, something else will happen to make us question why they brought them back into the Tour - Murphy's Law.

I reckon the ASO should do a reality TV style adjudicating - you know, change the rules as they go along to keep it interesting. It's why Big Brother worked so well (initially).

mididoctors

Kléber wrote:

It's because the riders are so close. I think you could put Contador and Schleck on the Angliru, Zoncolan or Everest and they'd probably still be close.

Sometimes we need to accept two riders can be as close.

true but any marginal difference in ability to go uphill should show more on the steep stuff...

Ben6899

iainf72 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

AidanR wrote:

It was epic, so long as you have some understanding of cycling. If not, it just looked like 2 blokes riding next to each other in fog.

I think you may have identified one or two on here!

Seriously question : While the stage was on, did the folks who thought it was good believe one rider was likely to drop the other at some point?

No. And to see the top two riders in the sport compete like that was brilliant. Both knew that if they eased at all then they would be dropped.

Shall we regress to the days of disco pills and ridiculous ascent times?

mididoctors

iainf72 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

AidanR wrote:

It was epic, so long as you have some understanding of cycling. If not, it just looked like 2 blokes riding next to each other in fog.

I think you may have identified one or two on here!

Seriously question : While the stage was on, did the folks who thought it was good believe one rider was likely to drop the other at some point?

after andys initial attack and the way contador took his wheel no...before the stage.. unsure you could smell the deal two cols earlier thou




didn't rate it as my all time awesome stage thou

iainf72

Ben6899 wrote:

No. And to see the top two riders in the sport compete like that was brilliant. Both knew that if they eased at all then they would be dropped.

Shall we regress to the days of disco pills and ridiculous ascent times?

No, of course not. I just didn't think it was *that* interesting. Did you watch the Giro at all?

If Cadel had been Contador, everyone would be running their hands through their hair wailing about wheel sucking.

mididoctors

talking of ascent times the tourmalet passed by so quickly


what was andys time?

blazing_saddles

iainf72 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

No. And to see the top two riders in the sport compete like that was brilliant. Both knew that if they eased at all then they would be dropped.

Shall we regress to the days of disco pills and ridiculous ascent times?

No, of course not. I just didn't think it was *that* interesting. Did you watch the Giro at all?

If Cadel had been Contador, everyone would be running their hands through their hair wailing about wheel sucking.

This debate is ongoing, elsewhere.
It seems that those who watch only the Tour think it has been a brilliant epic,
while those who saw the Giro, find it predictable, certainly tactics wise.
Different benchmarks, different conclusion.

rick_chasey

Is there something to be said for the idea that because most big GC riders are so well versed in preparing for the tour and arriving there in top form, that the differences will never be as big for the Giro, which has not only a larger spread of talent, but also a larger spread of form?

Kléber

I've watched both and found them both to be very good races. They always come down to a few moments.

The bar was set so high by this year's Giro, that was an amazing race. But the Tour, well I've found it enjoyable. It's just a shame the GC result has been so predictable but it's still been a good duel.

Kléber

"it probably looked on TV like his riding was very one pace but he said that he attacked 15 times, or he increased his pace 15 times and he said he's got the SRM readings to prove it... Contador said the pace was going up and down all the time"

Pete Cossins

Ben6899

iainf72 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

No. And to see the top two riders in the sport compete like that was brilliant. Both knew that if they eased at all then they would be dropped.

Shall we regress to the days of disco pills and ridiculous ascent times?

No, of course not. I just didn't think it was *that* interesting. Did you watch the Giro at all?

If Cadel had been Contador, everyone would be running their hands through their hair wailing about wheel sucking.

I watch as much racing as possible, but missed a lot of this year's Giro thanks to work commitments (ironic considering yesterday's news). The stalemates arise in the Tour as a result of riders aiming their whole race season around it... they're on top form or tend to be. I'm not educating here (I know you know that), just making the observation.

takethehighroad

I've been entertained most days on this Tour, whereas last year I missed a few stages and didn't feel I'd missed a lot (wish I'd missed a couple of others too, never getting that time back)

The GC was always going to be predictable, the fact that it's closer than people expected means we expect more, but I think we'll have to wait until next year for that.

As good as the Giro was, there were some dull stages in there too.