Tour - Time Bonuses...

pedro118118

...or bonification if you're Sean Kelly (?!).
I see there are no time bonuses for stage placings again next year - why?

Seems a shame to remove such a big incentive to go all out for the win - especially given how close it was last year. To my mind, the no bonus policy just stack the cards in favour of the defender, rather than the attacker and paves the way for for 'gifts'. I can't see Bertie letting Schleck (A) cross the line so readily at the top of the Tourmalet first, if there was a proper bonus available.

Kléber

I think the opposing idea is that it forces riders to attack. A time bonus means you stick to the wheel of someone and then pop around them with 50 metres to go. Avoiding them means if you want to gain time then you have to drop your rivals. I like that.

iainf72

The position is that they want the winner to be the guy who did the course in the shortest time and want a "true" number, not one skewed by bonuses.

rick_chasey

Kléber wrote:

I think the opposing idea is that it forces riders to attack. A time bonus means you stick to the wheel of someone and then pop around them with 50 metres to go. Avoiding them means if you want to gain time then you have to drop your rivals. I like that.

Because the top of the tourmalet was so exciting.

Kléber

You can't tweak the rules to make everything happen but 10 seconds on the Tourmalet would have only livened up the last hairpin bend. The pair tried some accelerations on the way up, to see if they could take 30 seconds or a minute but it wasn't possible. Bring in time bonuses and a pair up the road have an interest in working together knowing they will gain extra time on the guys behind. No time bonuses mean they have to attack each other.

pedro118118

This is not about the Tourmalet 2010 in isolation, more about the fact that a rider can win the Tour without winning any stages. I don't like that, but appreciate that may be at odds with some of the purists. At the end of the day the best (GC) rider wins overall, but conservatism isn't exciting - even Cadel Evans has woken up to that fact.

takethehighroad

But Cadel Evans would rather win the Tour by following wheels and taking it in a time trial than by swashbuckling attacks.

That's the name of the game in a Grand Tour, finishing the course on the lowest possible time

pedro118118

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

But Cadel Evans would rather win the Tour by following wheels and taking it in a time trial than by swashbuckling attacks.

That's the name of the game in a Grand Tour, finishing the course on the lowest possible time

I appreciate that. And I accept that is the purist view.
That's probably why I prefer the Classics - first across the line wins, energy considervation and recovery isn't an issue.

takethehighroad

Exactly, the classics win every time, but that's the beauty of cycling, there's something for everyone.

Some people like GTs to see the progression and transfer of power over three weeks, and seeing someone doing badly one day but then coming back the next to recover.

InSituTravel

I'm torn which I prefer more. I tend to be a purist when it comes to cycling, but I have to say that the time bonuses can liven up the race from time to time. It becomes a battle within the larger race to see who is not only the fastest, but also the most consistent.

rick_chasey

From a spectacle perspective, and I know this is blasphemous, but wouldn't it be fun if you had to win at least one stage to win the Tour?

So say, last year, on the Tourmalet, suddenly Contador gets the sh!ts.

You could, if it worked out that way, have a mountain stage raced like a classic. It'd be crazy.

Tusher

Rick Chasey wrote:

From a spectacle perspective, and I know this is blasphemous, but wouldn't it be fun if you had to win at least one stage to win the Tour?

Not blasphemous, just genius.

RichN95.

In my opinion the abandonment of time bonuses by the Tour after 2007 was down to three events:

1. Landis being disqualified after the Tour in 2006
2. Rasmussen being kicked out mid-Tour in 2007
3. In the 2007 Tour, Contador beating Evans by 23 seconds (20 of which came from time bonuses), with Leipheimer just 8 more seconds back.

I believe that they could see the possibility of a monumental clusterfuk and said adieu.

Personally, I don't like them anyway and I don't think they make racing any better.

jonginge

RichN95 wrote:

In my opinion the abandonment of time bonuses by the Tour after 2007 was down to three events:

1. Landis being disqualified after the Tour in 2006
2. Rasmussen being kicked out mid-Tour in 2007
3. In the 2007 Tour, Contador beating Evans by 23 seconds (20 of which came from time bonuses), with Leipheimer just 8 more seconds back.

I believe that they could see the possibility of a monumental clusterfuk and said adieu.

Personally, I don't like them anyway and I don't think they make racing any better.

Yep, that's what I always thought. Having to retrospectively reassign bonuses, and potentially reorder the podium, when a doper is caught after the race probably gave ASO nightmares.

In 2005 didn't Vino nick a place by picking up the bonus on the champs?

rick_chasey

Tusher wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

From a spectacle perspective, and I know this is blasphemous, but wouldn't it be fun if you had to win at least one stage to win the Tour?

Not blasphemous, just genius.

Genius?

Let's discuss that more... :P


But really - would it be so bad? You'd get potential GC contenders fighting tooth and nail on an otherwise potentially dull stage trying to win so they can take a pop at yellow in Paris.