Vuelta / Froome / Cobo

iainf72

If you'd not seen it, Froome covered the entire route 19 seconds quicker than Cobo, but Cobo got more time bonus action.

Bronzie

Personally, I don't think time bonuses should be needed in a 3 week GT. In a flat 1 week tour, then yes, it splits things up a bit and motivates the racing.

I'd rather have seen the Vuelta organisers plan a decent 3rd week rather than the damp squib they came up with. Most disappointing of the 3 GT's this year from route perspective.

rick_chasey

Cobo would have ridden differently if there were no time bonuses.

Time bonuses give another tactical dimension and gets GC riders racing for the line, rather than the clock, so I'm all for it.

Monty Zoncolan

Have to agree. Used well they make the race more exciting.

Kléber

I don't like time bonuses but am happy to see them in some races. Presumably nobody's trying to say Froome should have won as the bonuses were no secret? He would have saved more than 19 seconds if Wiggo was riding for him and so on.

Yellow Peril

I agree with Bronzie.

Time bonuses in a GT shouldn't be necessary. They are all about grinding out the win and the war of attrition over thousands of kms and three weeks. In a one week tour they are useful as they can be used to prevent what could end up being a foregone conclusion on day one.

mroli

Na - time bonuses are good. Rewards aggressive riding to win stages. Cobo good value all round. BTW - did Froome get a time bonus for coming second in TT stage?! I don't think so, but that would be another "handicap" for good TTers?

Turfle

Cobo of course was the deserving winner. Everyone knew the rules beforehand.

That said, I'm against time bonuses for the most part. 20 seconds is a hell of a big bonus on a mountain stage. Stages like the Sierra Nevada stage where Froome and then Wiggins TTd up, left it all on the road, but were jumped by Mollema, Martin, and one other, is why I'm against time bonuses. They make "sitting on" the good tactical choice.

If you have to have them make it 6, 4, 2.

mrushton

If SKY had performed better in the TT then it may have been a different story. Cobo won and SKY still managed 2&3 and the Red jersey over a few days.They did ok but the opening stage cost them the race.

smithy21

I agree with the view that time bonuses shouldnt be necessary in a 3 week tour.

I can see the argument for agressive riding but in reality I think riders want a stage win on the palmares anyway so would still go for it.

RichN95.

Turfle wrote:

Cobo of course was the deserving winner. Everyone knew the rules beforehand.

That said, I'm against time bonuses for the most part. 20 seconds is a hell of a big bonus on a mountain stage. Stages like the Sierra Nevada stage where Froome and then Wiggins TTd up, left it all on the road, but were jumped by Mollema, Martin, and one other, is why I'm against time bonuses. They make "sitting on" the good tactical choice.

If you have to have them make it 6, 4, 2.

The 'one other' was Cobo, who gained a few seconds (four I think) with an 8 seconds bonus on top.

I'm against them personally, but the time to moan about is before the race not after. The idea that without them Froome would have won is also misguided.

pedro118118

As per previous posts, the race was ridden and tactics employed in the full knowledge that time bonuses were a factor, so little merit in comparing apples with oranges.

Personally, I think time bonuses are good - they reward the GC riders, who actually cross the finish line first (or 2nd or 3rd to a lesser extent), which makes the racing/finale more agressive/interesting.

Appreciate such an approach doesn't favour the likes of Wiggins, as they seldom cross the line first, but discourages sitting on and waiting for the TTs.

Gazzaputt

For me time bonuses have no place in a GT.

Shorter tours yes.

Turfle

RichN95 wrote:

The 'one other' was Cobo, who gained a few seconds (four I think) with an 8 seconds bonus on top.

I'm against them personally, but the time to moan about is before the race not after. The idea that without them Froome would have won is also misguided.

Yeah, Froome himself has said the time bonus argument should have been had 3 weeks ago. It's just an interesting little anomaly that Froome rode the course faster than the winner.

And I got my stages mixed up, it was the La Covatila stage, and Cobo did indeed get the bonus.

Tom Butcher

I'm in favour of time bonuses - I don't think they necessarily encourage sitting on it depends on the situation. Some riders know they have a kick so it may encourage them to sit on - other riders will know they haven't so they might be encouraged to attack earlier and try and get a gap.

On some stages in particular a time bonus can reward a late attack on the sort Vinokourov launches whereas without them that kind of tactic is rarely rewarded with more than a handful of seconds. Without them it plays into the hands of the strong time triallists who can just follow wheels and then make up minutes on one TT. Riders think why attack late and burn so many matches for 4-5 seconds.

rolf_f

Problem with time bonuses is that they make the idea of listing riders in a time classification a joke. According to the results, Cobo finished the race in 84:59:31 - but he didn't so why pretend that he did?

FJS

I quite like time bonuses, even in a grand tour. They invite GC riders to actually compete for stage wins rather than roll in safely in a group, and the intermediates can add an interesting tactical race within a race like this year. Yes, the result can be a bit sour for Froome if it's really close, but in the end getting bonus seconds is about race skills (tactical and physical), and I can't see what is wrong with them.

It's a moot point just to focus on those 19 seconds - there are other rules that hide how fast riders cover the whole parcours. The rule that everyone in the bunch gets the same time for instance. Someone consistently finishing at the back of the bunch could actually 'cover the parcours' minutes slower than someone consistently finishing at the front of the bunch

prawny

Thinking about it, if it wasn't for bonus seconds we wouldn't have had the amazing finish to stage 17(?) would Froome have bothered attacking the second time once cobo had made it back up?

They do encourage racing for position right to the end of the stage rather than just following over the line and getting the same time a la Bert and Andy on the Tourmalet last year.

Ron Stuart

Froome failed to win the event because of Sky's complete mess up of the team Time Trial on the opening day of the event and Cobo's unbelievable turn of form. :shock:

thegreatdivide

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cobo would have ridden differently if there were no time bonuses

And he wasn't on the juice.

dgstewart

prawny wrote:

They do encourage racing for position right to the end of the stage rather than just following over the line and getting the same time a la Bert and Andy on the Tourmalet last year.

Agree, I find it just a bit odd when you see riders not contesting stage wins because it has no impact on their overall result. I think they defintiely add an extra bit of spice to the racing, and do encourage a bit more "proper" racing at the front from GC contenders. Maybe the magnitude of the time bonuses could be debated (not actulaly saying they are too high or low), but in principle I like them.

woody1545

I agree about the Team Time Trial c*ck up.

However, in the interest of balance (which obviously we're not because he's almost British and this is the internet!) if you're gonna mention Cobo's unbelievable form then surely you have to mention Froomes?

Ron Stuart

dgstewart wrote:

prawny wrote:

They do encourage racing for position right to the end of the stage rather than just following over the line and getting the same time a la Bert and Andy on the Tourmalet last year.

Agree, I find it just a bit odd when you see riders not contesting stage wins because it has no impact on their overall result. I think they defintiely add an extra bit of spice to the racing, and do encourage a bit more "proper" racing at the front from GC contenders. Maybe the magnitude of the time bonuses could be debated (not actulaly saying they are too high or low), but in principle I like them.

Strange I said exactly the same thing to the wife and my fathers from Aberdeen and my brother's name is Doug Stuart

Canny.

Ron Stuart

woody1545 wrote:

I agree about the Team Time Trial c*ck up.

However, in the interest of balance (which obviously we're not because he's almost British and this is the internet!) if you're gonna mention Cobo's unbelievable form then surely you have to mention Froomes?

Unbelievable as Sean Kelly would say, not in the can't be believed sense of course. Although Cobo's has hung around with some bad company in the past as has his team manager.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauro_Gianetti
Yes I agree about Froome he should also attract some attention as he did show unbelievably good form the likes of which we haven't seen before.
Although Froome is four years younger than Cobo he too has never shown any of this ability before.

rebs

Think Wiggins must be really cheesed up. Not for coming 3rd. But by being beanen by 2 people he would never have expected to be beaten by.

I'm not keen for time bonuses but they were clearly in the race at the start so everyone knew they were in. It would have been a different race if they were not included so it is possible the GC would possibly have been altered.

blazing_saddles

RichN95 wrote:

Turfle wrote:

Cobo of course was the deserving winner. Everyone knew the rules beforehand.

That said, I'm against time bonuses for the most part. 20 seconds is a hell of a big bonus on a mountain stage. Stages like the Sierra Nevada stage where Froome and then Wiggins TTd up, left it all on the road, but were jumped by Mollema, Martin, and one other, is why I'm against time bonuses. They make "sitting on" the good tactical choice.

If you have to have them make it 6, 4, 2.

The 'one other' was Cobo, who gained a few seconds (four I think) with an 8 seconds bonus on top.

I'm against them personally, but the time to moan about is before the race not after. The idea that without them Froome would have won is also misguided.

Eh?
I thought Sierra Nevada bonuses went to Moreno, CAS and Dan Martin. :?
Of those who "ambushed" the Sky duo, only Dan got bonus seconds.
Of course, according to the rational being put forward above, instead of "jumping", we would just have continued "sitting" on.

Hardly an improvement.

I agree that the idea that Froome would have won without bonuses is misguided.

afx237vi

I find it quite strange that a 3 week race needed to be settled with time bonuses in the first place. Maybe that means there was something wrong with the route, because in 21 days the only really selective stages were the Angliru, the TTT and the ITT. Everything else ended with small groups and very small gaps. The entire top ten is separated by 5 and half minutes... you get bigger gaps than that in Paris-Nice!

victorponf

afx237vi wrote:

I find it quite strange that a 3 week race needed to be settled with time bonuses in the first place. Maybe that means there was something wrong with the route, because in 21 days the only really selective stages were the Angliru, the TTT and the ITT. Everything else ended with small groups and very small gaps. The entire top ten is separated by 5 and half minutes... you get bigger gaps than that in Paris-Nice!

The problem was that Angliru was the last mountain stage (Pena Cabarga is just a long uphill finish) and the favourites just wait for it in Ancares and Farrapona, two stages quite hard

edhornby

incidentally, Froome and Cobo were on the same time after the TTT.... I think that the team TT skews the race as much as win time bonuses (I would still have a TTT but make it a cash prize only)

I reckon that Froome and Cobo would have duelled it on the last big stage if there were no time bonuses, there was a stage win at stake and the palmares, psychological win and cash would have been enough motivation

This years TdF and last years Giro proved that you don't need time bonuses to make exciting racing

RichN95.

Blazing Saddles wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Turfle wrote:

Cobo of course was the deserving winner. Everyone knew the rules beforehand.

That said, I'm against time bonuses for the most part. 20 seconds is a hell of a big bonus on a mountain stage. Stages like the Sierra Nevada stage where Froome and then Wiggins TTd up, left it all on the road, but were jumped by Mollema, Martin, and one other, is why I'm against time bonuses. They make "sitting on" the good tactical choice.

If you have to have them make it 6, 4, 2.

The 'one other' was Cobo, who gained a few seconds (four I think) with an 8 seconds bonus on top.

I'm against them personally, but the time to moan about is before the race not after. The idea that without them Froome would have won is also misguided.

Eh?
I thought Sierra Nevada bonuses went to Moreno, CAS and Dan Martin. :?
Of those who "ambushed" the Sky duo, only Dan got bonus seconds.
Of course, according to the rational being put forward above, instead of "jumping", we would just have continued "sitting" on.

Hardly an improvement.

I agree that the idea that Froome would have won without bonuses is misguided.

As Turfle has already mentioned, he got his stages muddled. He meant the stage Dan Martin won. I knew that's what he meant, as I'm terrible at remembering place names.

blazing_saddles

Ah, La Covatilla.
Yes, a fair point for that stage, but I suppose the Sky duo were happy enough with the overall result. Nibali, Scarponi, Fuglsang and Rodriguez all taking big hits.
Clearly, they weren't bothered about the possibility of losing a few bonus seconds.
I think a few bonus seconds up for grabs might have worked well at Le Tour this year.