GT routes: love and hate.

moray_gub

knedlicky wrote:

As example, on the stage to St. Jean de Maurienne, I mean that times could have be taken at the top of the Col de Saisies as well as the finish, as if the two halves of the stage were separate stages (or maybe a double-stage is a better description). The result would have been that Leon-Luis Sanchez and those with him like Moreau would have gained 5-30 on the yellow jersey and the other contenders in the first half (stage), and also would have been allowed to carry the time-advantage they’d gained into the second half (stage).
The virtual yellow jersey would then perhaps sometimes actually become the actual yellow jersey halfway through the day, without stopping for a ceremony or getting to wear yellow. He might also then lose it by the end of the day, but the time gained in the first half of the day would be retained.

Of course I wouldn’t hope these stages would evolve the same as they did the other week, rather that the main contenders, realising there was time to be gained earlier on in a stage, wouldn’t leave their attacks until the last kms of the final climb, but attack about midway through too.
I also realise riders might attack, gain a few seconds then relax and recuperate ready for the final climb, but I think even that would be better than main contenders riding alongside each other until practically the end, as now the fashion.
It might also open up totally different tactics, especially for those teams with two strong riders.

Sounds just like the Madison on the track fun to watch but nobody has a scooby doo what the hell is going on.

Pross

Won't that just lead to breaks being pulled back or not being allowed to develop at all?

I don't think there's need for any radical changes just a few more 'intermediate' days. Most days are either 'flat' with bunch sprints or mountainous. Flattish stages with a finish at the top of a medium length, steep climb or days with a few medium climbs would just give a more balanced mix. Also, if the TTs were held on routes with a few 3rd or 4th cat climbs it would reward a strong rider but not necessarily a climber. It would be nice to see strong all rounders getting a chance alongside those who are predominantly climbers who can TT a bit.

flet©h

knedlicky wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

I am having real trouble with this help me out here

From your examples, I think you’ve got what I mean, irrespective of whether you call it a time bonus or think of it like a stage.

In the Tour, after the St. Jean-de-M stage, L.L. Sanchez was 4-41 back in the GC behind Schleck, but had LLS been deducted 5-30 from his overall time, because he was that far ahead of Schleck at the halfway stage, he would have actually been 0-49 ahead of Schleck, and thus Tour leader.
Similarly, Casar (who I think was with Sanchez at the top of Saisies) would have ‘gained’ 5-30 and would have only been 5-16 behind Schleck, instead of 10-46 (Casar would have been 6-05 behind Tour leader LLS).

I'd don't get it either.

In your example Schleck and Contador did the second half of the Stage 5.30 faster than the break. So its status quo, the break got 5.30 up on yellow on the first half but lost 5.30 on the second half. This is just the virtual GC that is already shown.

For it to work the way I think you want the clock on second half of the stage would have to start the moment the leader of the stage crossed the start line.

So as the break crosses the line their time so far gets added to their GC time. They carry on on the stage and the clock starts for every rider.

As Schleck & Contador cross the line at the end of the first half, their time so far gets added to the GC, 5.30 longer than the break and the keep going on the second half, their time already ticking at 5.30 behind.

Once they all finish the stage togther the break and the yellow all receive the same time, the time from when the leaders crossed the intermediate line to the finish. All calcualated out the break would have gained 5.30 on the stage.

If the break had stayed out and the gap was 5.30 (covering the second half of the stage in the same time as the yellow) at the finish they would have gained 11 mins on the GC at the end of the day.

I can see the attraction to liven up the start and middle of stages but it all seems a bit convoluted. Would you be able to explain it all in a 30 min highlights show and explain how someone had gained 11 mins on the GC despite only covering the route 5.30 faster.

TheStone

Not sure how it would work out with cars, coaches etc, but I think smaller teams could help.
Maybe even as low as 6 per team.

mididoctors

Moray Gub wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

As example, on the stage to St. Jean de Maurienne, I mean that times could have be taken at the top of the Col de Saisies as well as the finish, as if the two halves of the stage were separate stages (or maybe a double-stage is a better description). The result would have been that Leon-Luis Sanchez and those with him like Moreau would have gained 5-30 on the yellow jersey and the other contenders in the first half (stage), and also would have been allowed to carry the time-advantage they’d gained into the second half (stage).
The virtual yellow jersey would then perhaps sometimes actually become the actual yellow jersey halfway through the day, without stopping for a ceremony or getting to wear yellow. He might also then lose it by the end of the day, but the time gained in the first half of the day would be retained.

Of course I wouldn’t hope these stages would evolve the same as they did the other week, rather that the main contenders, realising there was time to be gained earlier on in a stage, wouldn’t leave their attacks until the last kms of the final climb, but attack about midway through too.
I also realise riders might attack, gain a few seconds then relax and recuperate ready for the final climb, but I think even that would be better than main contenders riding alongside each other until practically the end, as now the fashion.
It might also open up totally different tactics, especially for those teams with two strong riders.

Sounds just like the Madison on the track fun to watch but nobody has a scooby doo what the hell is going on.

stagehopper

La Montagne de Lure (which was used for the first time in Pars-Nice last year) followed by Ventoux would be a decent stage.

flet©h

What you really need is a balance of stages so there is a chance the race could be won by an all rounder or someone who is fantastic at one discipline and struggles though the rest.

Climbers need to be able to gain time in the mountains
TTers need to be able to gain time on TTs
A classics rider needs to be able to gain time on intermediate stages

Bring it all together and the best in each class should be close, assuming they have attacked in their discipline.

It shouldn’t just be the best climber that wins as now but a pure climber should have a opportunity to win if they go hard and early in the mountains to gain a buffer for the TT and some intermediate stages.

How?

Mountains as they are but the climbers would have to go harder to gain time they have lost elsewhere, making them more exciting.

More intermediate stages that, if ridden hard could create a selection that doesn’t favour the climbers.

More TT miles earlier in the race to give non climbers something to defend in the mountains.

afx237vi

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Problem with that is, what happens if the break gets 20mins?

It would be a more exciting race?

I remember watching footage of a dutch win in I think the late '70s, where the break was a lap up on the peloton, so suddenly, half way in the pack, the winner sits up in the middle of the peloton celebrating.

Very odd - wasn't really a great TV spectacle.

Similar thing happened a few years ago in the Tour of Ireland:

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/200 ... ireland075

It was a bit of a farce, really. The peloton weren't allowed to the pass the break, but the break was playing cat-and-mouse, so the bunch was just sat there twiddling their thumbs. And then when the breakaway finished, the bunch didn't know whether they had to complete the extra lap or not, so half of them stopped, while the other half carried out without knowing whether the race was over or not.

Moral of the story is: short laps at the end of a road stage is probably not a good idea.

mididoctors

knedlicky wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

I am having real trouble with this help me out here

From your examples, I think you’ve got what I mean, irrespective of whether you call it a time bonus or think of it like a stage.

In the Tour, after the St. Jean-de-M stage, L.L. Sanchez was 4-41 back in the GC behind Schleck, but had LLS been deducted 5-30 from his overall time, because he was that far ahead of Schleck at the halfway stage, he would have actually been 0-49 ahead of Schleck, and thus Tour leader.

thats no different from virtual gc yeah

Similarly, Casar (who I think was with Sanchez at the top of Saisies) would have ‘gained’ 5-30 and would have only been 5-16 behind Schleck, instead of 10-46 (Casar would have been 6-05 behind Tour leader LLS).

I think you need to think about this a bit because you don't seem to understand the problems I raised..unless I'm immensely stupid

the time bonus would be measured relative to who or what?

because if its the yellow jersey then if you have the yellow jersey on your team you can heavily manipulate the stage and time bonus and/or the race is even more shut down to stop that behaviour if its the stage start/lead rider the same thing happens


a simpler and more workable version is just stick 1 min time bonus points down the course

but then your back to the race been riden or controlled to negate them just as the breaks are now

I dont think it would work or would just produce unintended consequences

you would just time the efforts as though the stage finish was at km "x" as a stage is now

unless km x would have to be carefully selected so as it was negated by tempo riding.. ie the entire bunch arrived at km x together?

would be a nightmare

mididoctors

what you need in a GT is a race where mins can be won and lost...

now the riders really are the guys who make the race..the giro had stages where everyone on GC had days where they took an immense packet... Basso stage 7

he won the bl00dy thing!

in the tour losing a min is pretty much a total catastrophe on a stage early in the race (later not so much if your up there)

knedlicky

mididoctors wrote:

I think you need to think about this a bit because you don't seem to understand the problems I raised..unless I'm immensely stupid
...
I dont think it would work or would just produce unintended consequences

I have thought about it and don’t believe it isn’t as complicated as you seem to think. Teams and riders could object to it because, for a while into the second half, it might not be clear what the new GC order was, thus affecting tactics, but with modern technology and communication this would normally only be for 10 mins or so.

And if it produced 'unintended consequences', all to the better.
Surely one of the reasons why posters in this thread are coming up with suggestions is in order to get away from the often-conservative tactics and the predictability of how many stages now develop.

knedlicky

Okay, TTT.
What about as a relay race?

Each team submits 6 participants, 20 km per team rider.
Teams do not need to announce which riders will take part, or their riding order, until 3 hours in advance.
500m long change-over zones.
Staggered start times between riders (like in any TT) in order to make it more difficult for groups to form. Or slipstreaming fully forbidden.
Non-participating team riders get given the same time as their participating colleagues.
(Teams might give the day off to the poorer TT riders, or to those injured/ill, or to a jersey contender they just want to rest).

mididoctors

knedlicky wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

I think you need to think about this a bit because you don't seem to understand the problems I raised..unless I'm immensely stupid
...
I dont think it would work or would just produce unintended consequences

I have thought about it and don’t believe it isn’t as complicated as you seem to think. Teams and riders could object to it because, for a while into the second half, it might not be clear what the new GC order was, thus affecting tactics, but with modern technology and communication this would normally only be for 10 mins or so.

And if it produced 'unintended consequences', all to the better.
Surely one of the reasons why posters in this thread are coming up with suggestions is in order to get away from the often-conservative tactics and the predictability of how many stages now develop.

ok when they cross the mid race point where are the gaps measured too?

flet©h

knedlicky wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

I think you need to think about this a bit because you don't seem to understand the problems I raised..unless I'm immensely stupid
...
I dont think it would work or would just produce unintended consequences

I have thought about it and don’t believe it isn’t as complicated as you seem to think.

If its not complicated then its just an over egged virtual GC.

If its not an over egged virtual GC then it needs to relativly complicated with head starts and/or time bonuses.

Maybe a simpler way would be to re-introduce time bonuses for intermediate sprints, stage wins and introduce them for mountain tops along with the KOM points. But rather than them being a few seconds to give the spinters a change in Yellow, make them minutes to force the GC contenders to go for them.