Thoughts on TTing Vs Climbing
Based on little evidence and no analysis what so ever I thought I'd offer the view that TTing seems to be in the GT ascendancy over climbing at present. It seems that now all the riders are clean(er ish) big lumps of time are not being lost or won on the climbs. Whereas poor TTing seems to be increasingly important.
Absolute rubbish or something in it?
Absolute rubbish or something in it?
0
Comments
-
To win the Tour, you need to be able to TT.
To win the Giro, you need to be able to climb.
To win the Vuelta, you need to be able to stay awake.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
you need to be competent at both, Fab and Tony Martin are unlikely to win a GT but will often win tts and Dan Martin and Nico Roche are less likely to win a GT but will do well on a hill top finish, Contador, Evans and even the Schlecks can do both, people underestimate their tts but they are still pretty handy when you consider they ride hard in the mountains while lots of others 'just get through them'0
-
I don't know that it's necessarily in the ascendancy, in the tour TTs have been very important in every year I've watched it. Lance (dare I mention his name) used to TT very very well, and used them to put significant amounts of time into his rivals.
One thing that is noticable, as I trawl through wiki to check my above statement, is overall winning margins in Paris.
For the three lance years I examined at random, Lance was comfortably in yellow by above 4 minutes.
For the last two years, the margin between yellow and 2nd has been 39 seconds (2010) and 1 min 34 (2011)
Of course, it's not enough to prove anything, but it does indicate that the GC contenders are finding it more difficult to take time out of one another, which could mean they are more close in terms of ability (or preparation if you're being cynical) or that the organisers are successful in designing parcours which lead to have close races...You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Big Mig was another who dominated the other riders in the TT (IIRC) to the extent it enabled him to win 5 TdFs....0
-
TTs are out of fashion at the moment.
It's much more geared towards climbers than it was, say, 10-20 years ago.
I remember in the late 90s and early 00s in the Tour you'd easily have 100km of individual TTs, and even a TTT on top.
Now you're lucky if you have 80 including a TTT.
The Giro has always been full of mountains and kept the TTs down to a minimum.
The Vuelta seems to be heading towards the Giro way. Ultimately, the public prefer watching mountain stages to time trials.
So I'd say it's the opposite to the OP.0 -
The 1987 tour had 130kms of individual time trials and 41kms of a team trial.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:TTs are out of fashion at the moment.
It's much more geared towards climbers than it was, say, 10-20 years ago.
I remember in the late 90s and early 00s in the Tour you'd easily have 100km of individual TTs, and even a TTT on top.
Now you're lucky if you have 80 including a TTT.
The Giro has always been full of mountains and kept the TTs down to a minimum.
The Vuelta seems to be heading towards the Giro way. Ultimately, the public prefer watching mountain stages to time trials.
So I'd say it's the opposite to the OP.
I think it is more out of fashion for the organisers for the reason's given by the OP - ie a TT can make or break a GC for someone (look at J Rod today) - therefore organisers are limiting the number or distance to try to allow GT's to be decided by the climbs or by a combination of factors. Whether they have the balance right is a different argument.0 -
mr_poll wrote:
I think it is more out of fashion for the organisers for the reason's given by the OP - ie a TT can make or break a GC for someone (look at J Rod today) - therefore organisers are limiting the number or distance to try to allow GT's to be decided by the climbs or by a combination of factors. Whether they have the balance right is a different argument.
If there are less TT kms then the TT is less important.
I don't think it's to keep skinny climbers in the GT hunt so much as people don't like watching them.
It makes more sense to have TT guys with loads of time so climbers have to do something on climbs rather than stare at each other.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:mr_poll wrote:
I think it is more out of fashion for the organisers for the reason's given by the OP - ie a TT can make or break a GC for someone (look at J Rod today) - therefore organisers are limiting the number or distance to try to allow GT's to be decided by the climbs or by a combination of factors. Whether they have the balance right is a different argument.
If there are less TT kms then the TT is less important.
I don't think it's to keep skinny climbers in the GT hunt so much as people don't like watching them.
It makes more sense to have TT guys with loads of time so climbers have to do something on climbs rather than stare at each other.
Doesnt seem to have the required effect on Andy Schleck though
0 -
Organisors of GTs have been known to set the course, with a mind to favour one rider over another. Is their favourite a better climber than a TT-er? Less miles against the clock, more uphill.Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:mr_poll wrote:
I think it is more out of fashion for the organisers for the reason's given by the OP - ie a TT can make or break a GC for someone (look at J Rod today) - therefore organisers are limiting the number or distance to try to allow GT's to be decided by the climbs or by a combination of factors. Whether they have the balance right is a different argument.
If there are less TT kms then the TT is less important.
I don't think it's to keep skinny climbers in the GT hunt so much as people don't like watching them.
It makes more sense to have TT guys with loads of time so climbers have to do something on climbs rather than stare at each other.
If Tony Martin or Fab Fabian had been French then you probably would have had a dozen 100km TT's in the TDF or if we had another Italian Moser the Giro would spend a minimum amount of time in the Alps/Dolomites and substituted some nice long flat TT's.
Jacques Anquetil, for weeks he could stay close to his enemies, and then attack in a time trial. His method of "just enough" didn't appease those who craved bold moves. When Anquetil was his most dominant, leading the 1961 Tour de France from first day to last, he was accused of being the rider "whom no one could drop, but who could drop no one." He was one of the best time trialers of his day.0 -
That's a bit of an understatement for Monsieur Chrono, 9 GP des Nations wins...Ron Stuart wrote:Jacques Anquetil, for weeks he could stay close to his enemies, and then attack in a time trial. His method of "just enough" didn't appease those who craved bold moves. When Anquetil was his most dominant, leading the 1961 Tour de France from first day to last, he was accused of being the rider "whom no one could drop, but who could drop no one." He was one of the best time trialers of his day.0 -
ozzzyosborn206 wrote:you need to be competent at both, Fab and Tony Martin are unlikely to win a GT but will often win tts and Dan Martin and Nico Roche are less likely to win a GT but will do well on a hill top finish, Contador, Evans and even the Schlecks can do both, people underestimate their tts but they are still pretty handy when you consider they ride hard in the mountains while lots of others 'just get through them'
Did I read the part in bold right? I thought the fact that they can't TT is why they don't win GT's...0 -
ozzzyosborn206 wrote:you need to be competent at both, Fab and Tony Martin are unlikely to win a GT but will often win tts and Dan Martin and Nico Roche are less likely to win a GT but will do well on a hill top finish, Contador, Evans and even the Schlecks can do both, people underestimate their tts but they are still pretty handy when you consider they ride hard in the mountains while lots of others 'just get through them'
Did I read the part in bold right?0 -
FJS wrote:
That's a bit of an understatement for Monsieur Chrono, 9 GP des Nations wins...Ron Stuart wrote:Jacques Anquetil, for weeks he could stay close to his enemies, and then attack in a time trial. His method of "just enough" didn't appease those who craved bold moves. When Anquetil was his most dominant, leading the 1961 Tour de France from first day to last, he was accused of being the rider "whom no one could drop, but who could drop no one." He was one of the best time trialers of his day.
Yep, but he could win the TDF and the point is that was because the French designed tours where he could win, like putting in long time trials, imagine if Tony Martin were French. By the way I am currently training with a guy who used to race Jacques quite often :!: me ride buddy has seen him with the essential comb in the back pocket. Wine, women and fine food was also very high on the menu hence the comb
0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:If there are less TT kms then the TT is less important.
I don't think it's to keep skinny climbers in the GT hunt so much as people don't like watching them.
It makes more sense to have TT guys with loads of time so climbers have to do something on climbs rather than stare at each other.
With that logic you need the TT before the final proper day, The TdF seems to favour a very late TT. If the climbers knew what they had to pull back they'd be more effort to do so. Not that I think the race should necessarily be to suit the climbers, it just increases the importance of the TT when the only proper Km's of TTing are late in the race. I think it's reasonable to judge on when the significant TT takes place, not just the number of Km in determining it's value to the GC.0 -
I disagree that TTs are boring to watch or that the fans dont want to watch them. Most especially for the fans beside the road, they got hours of riders coming through rather than 30secs in a regular stage.
The TT yesterday was annoying that it destroyed so many people but then the idea of a GC is to be good at everything not just climbing - if that is the case like with Rodriguez then stage wins and KofM should be priority and if the overall win comes from time won in the mountains then so much the better. The thing with Joaquim is that he is great on the steepest parts but rarely gains monster time. The Angliru might be an exception given its consistent beast gradient.Contador is the Greatest0 -
frenchfighter wrote:The TT yesterday was annoying that it destroyed so many people but then the idea of a GC is to be good at everything not just climbing - if that is the case like with Rodriguez then stage wins and KofM should be priority and if the overall win comes from time won in the mountains then so much the better. The thing with Joaquim is that he is great on the steepest parts but rarely gains monster time. The Angliru might be an exception given its consistent beast gradient.
I wouldn't say it destroyed that many people. At least not disproportionately.
Anton and Scarponi lost minutes, but then they had big loses on stage 9 as well. VdB underperformed, but then maybe he's not in great shape either.
The only one who suffered as expected, was Rodriguez. As you say, he's not one to make huge gains in the mountains, but he has had the benefit of two tailor made stages, so far (and the 40s bonuses that went with the wins).
I think, across the board, it is easier for a 'pure' climber to win GTs than ever before.Twitter: @RichN950 -
dougzz wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:If there are less TT kms then the TT is less important.
I don't think it's to keep skinny climbers in the GT hunt so much as people don't like watching them.
It makes more sense to have TT guys with loads of time so climbers have to do something on climbs rather than stare at each other.
With that logic you need the TT before the final proper day, The TdF seems to favour a very late TT. If the climbers knew what they had to pull back they'd be more effort to do so. Not that I think the race should necessarily be to suit the climbers, it just increases the importance of the TT when the only proper Km's of TTing are late in the race. I think it's reasonable to judge on when the significant TT takes place, not just the number of Km in determining it's value to the GC.
I don't think where the TT is in the GT makes that much difference to its significance to who the course favours - though certainly to the way the race plays out.
If anything, if there is to be a difference, an earlier TT would be more selective since it would rely much less on third week freshness and much more on pure TT ability.
The singular ITT right at the end of the Tour makes sense when you look at the favourites going into the race and the new organiser's desire to keep things as close as possible as late as possible.
The Schlecks and Contador are, on paper before the '11 Tour anyway, pretty well matched uphill, but Contador destroys them in the TT. An early TT would have the danger of putting Contador in a powerful position early on and so destroying the tension.
As it worked out, the plan still worked out but in a more extreme way but with Evans - Evans could afford to lose a little more uphill than the Sclhecks.
My take is that it's worth having a proper TT early on ideally before the mountains, and another very late in the day. Though the TTs are dull, they, in theory, should make the mountains more exciting, since people would already have less to lose. That was what was wrong with Plateau de Beille. Too many people too close together on GC - too much to lose.
(I LOVE chat about routes)0
