Off-Season hypothetical questions...

greasedscotsman

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

#2 I actually really like GreasedScotsman's suggestion. That way the green jersey contenders have to push harder in the mountains but it overcomes the usual concern that you would lose too many riders.

But why reduce a perfectly decent competition to a level of a farce due to some arbitrary time limit which isn't even set until the first rider is over the line just to satisfy a few fans' romantic notions about 'survival' and their bizarre idea that the sprinters are having a easy day off.

And your TTT idea wouldn't work either. A puncture is bad luck, but why compound it nine times?

But isn't it a farce that the winner of this year's sprinters classification at the TdF was eliminated twice? Should we go further and say that you don't even have to finish the race? Maybe all races should be run like the Tour of Mallorca ?

Seems to me there's a loop hole in the rules which all of the riders in the autobus take advantage of. If you remove the time limit, you've then removed the challenge of finishing the race. I'm sure I could finish the Tour if I can come in 5 hours down on each stage. But then if you doubled it, or even quadrupled it, the riders capable would aim to come in about a minute in front. It's not about having an easy day or not, it's about saving energy for tomorrow.

So why not go even further. If a rider finishes outside the time limit he loses all points in all competitions and prize money he's earned up to that stage in the race. If the race refs want to reinstate riders like they do now, then that's up to them, don't see a problem with that. But it then adds an extra dimension to the race. Would you have found HTC driving the autobus up Alpe d'Huez when they realised they were too close to the time limit? I'm sure you would see more riders eleminated, but would still get a decent sized bunch on the Champs Elysees.

neonriver

greasedscotsman wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

#2 I actually really like GreasedScotsman's suggestion. That way the green jersey contenders have to push harder in the mountains but it overcomes the usual concern that you would lose too many riders.

But why reduce a perfectly decent competition to a level of a farce due to some arbitrary time limit which isn't even set until the first rider is over the line just to satisfy a few fans' romantic notions about 'survival' and their bizarre idea that the sprinters are having a easy day off.

And your TTT idea wouldn't work either. A puncture is bad luck, but why compound it nine times?

But isn't it a farce that the winner of this year's sprinters classification at the TdF was eliminated twice? Should we go further and say that you don't even have to finish the race? Maybe all races should be run like the Tour of Mallorca ?

Seems to me there's a loop hole in the rules which all of the riders in the autobus take advantage of. If you remove the time limit, you've then removed the challenge of finishing the race. I'm sure I could finish the Tour if I can come in 5 hours down on each stage. But then if you doubled it, or even quadrupled it, the riders capable would aim to come in about a minute in front. It's not about having an easy day or not, it's about saving energy for tomorrow.

So why not go even further. If a rider finishes outside the time limit he loses all points in all competitions and prize money he's earned up to that stage in the race. If the race refs want to reinstate riders like they do now, then that's up to them, don't see a problem with that. But it then adds an extra dimension to the race. Would you have found HTC driving the autobus up Alpe d'Huez when they realised they were too close to the time limit? I'm sure you would see more riders eleminated, but would still get a decent sized bunch on the Champs Elysees.

I don't know why everyone gets bent out of shape that Cavendish was a barely outside the time limit, stage 8 of the 2001 Tour all but 14 riders were outside the time limit. Why did no one demand that they all got thrown out?

RichN95.

greasedscotsman wrote:

But isn't it a farce that the winner of this year's sprinters classification at the TdF was eliminated twice? Should we go further and say that you don't even have to finish the race? Maybe all races should be run like the Tour of Mallorca ?

He wasn't eliminated twice, he missed the time cut and got a points fine - as stated by the rules.

The time cut is there for media and logistics reasons. It's completely arbitrary (the 2011 limits were tighter than 2010's by about 5minutes) and might not be terribly realistic on the day (for example a large autobus will often come to a complete halt behind traffic on a busy mountain like Alpe d'Huez). The organisers can get it wrong, so they don't have stupid draconian punishments.

Who cares if the autobus comes in 32 minutes down rather than 31? Why ruin a good contest because of some dogmatic devotion to a random number? Any why 31 minutes anyway? Why not 40? Why not six?

A few years a go there was a stage when 82 riders missed the time cut, including all the green jersey contenders. Had the time limit been based on the second placed rider that day they would have made it? But not based on the winner that day. So throw them all out? Take all their points away? Great idea, eh?

Now let me tell you the winner that day. Floyd Landis who, of course, then failed a dope test and was disqualified? Does everyone now get their points back? A 25 point fine can be brushed off with 'what's done is done', but the other plans can't.

Crankbrother

I said at he time just zero the points of those who miss the cut ... The sprinters can still win stages but the best finishers jersey would still go to, well, the best finisher ...

blazing_saddles

Crankbrother wrote:

I said at he time just zero the points of those who miss the cut ... The sprinters can still win stages but the best finishers jersey would still go to, well, the best finisher ...

Well, that would be the yellow jersey winner.

Only a third of the field didn't miss the cut, over the two Alpine stages.
Mini stage with 3 huge cols and everything to race for was bound to screw up the MV competition.
Daft debate of the year raises it's ugly head again.

ddraver

Would "The Eliminators" rather have the green jersey decided by a team that sends a 45kg up the road to win the stage and eliminate all the sprinters only to dissappear home the next day?

Rich95 has told you why the "time limit" exists and that is totally arbitary - how do you decide what limit is not arbitary? Let us not forget that Desgrange wanted time gaps to be measured in days not minutes....

ddraver

Not sure quite how I double quote posted :oops:

Crankbrother

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Crankbrother wrote:

I said at he time just zero the points of those who miss the cut ... The sprinters can still win stages but the best finishers jersey would still go to, well, the best finisher ...

Well, that would be the yellow jersey winner.

Only a third of the field didn't miss the cut, over the two Alpine stages.
Mini stage with 3 huge cols and everything to race for was bound to screw up the MV competition.
Daft debate of the year raises it's ugly head again.

Not really, the rider with the lowest aggregate time is in yellow, the best finisher from all the stages could end up last ... or eliminated and still in green ...

greasedscotsman

RichN95 wrote:

The time cut is there for media and logistics reasons. It's completely arbitrary (the 2011 limits were tighter than 2010's by about 5minutes) and might not be terribly realistic on the day (for example a large autobus will often come to a complete halt behind traffic on a busy mountain like Alpe d'Huez). The organisers can get it wrong, so they don't have stupid draconian punishments.

Who cares if the autobus comes in 32 minutes down rather than 31? Why ruin a good contest because of some dogmatic devotion to a random number? Any why 31 minutes anyway? Why not 40? Why not six?

A few years a go there was a stage when 82 riders missed the time cut, including all the green jersey contenders. Had the time limit been based on the second placed rider that day they would have made it? But not based on the winner that day. So throw them all out? Take all their points away? Great idea, eh?

Now let me tell you the winner that day. Floyd Landis who, of course, then failed a dope test and was disqualified? Does everyone now get their points back? A 25 point fine can be brushed off with 'what's done is done', but the other plans can't.

I'm not suggesting riders get thrown off the race, just take their points away. It's not much of a threat to fine a sprinter 20 points for finishing outside the time limit, not when most of the sprinters are in the same group. And how does it penalise riders like Cancellara, Martin and Millar who were all outside the time limit on Alpe d'Huez because they were saving themselves for the TT the following day? Don't try and tell me that any of them couldn't have made the limit. That for me is just was bad. Mind you, not sure how my idea zeroing points would affect them either, but there you go. I didn't say it was perfect!

I don't really care why the time limit exists, for me it adds to the difficulty of the race. It's the whole point of stage racing, isn't it? That you have to finish every day in terrain that might not suit you. You might be a sprinter struggling in the mountains or a climber fighting to stay in an echelon or Andy Schleck in a TT! The Sprinters classification at the Tour is surely the ultimate prize of a sprinter not just because you need to be a good sprinter, but also that you have to get through mountains as well. Doesn't seem to mean as much if you can dodge the time limit by riding in a big enough group that you know you won't get eliminated.

Not sure what you can do with something like the Floyd Landis thing in '06, you could argue that what he did on that stage messed up the whole race. Don't know what the answer is there. And didn't Cavendish lose the Sprinters classification in '09 by 10 points? Maybe you'd have liked to explain to him that "What's done is done" after he was docked points for cutting up Hushovd in a sprint?

ddraver

You kind of step all over your point in that last paragraph....

Cav lost the jersey by 10 points, so if Thor had finished out of the cut one race he would have lost the jersey...So it's not a pointless punishment. In fact it can alter the whole of the competition. Feillu (was it?) could have attacked the bus on the Alpe this year and saved 20 points, making the final day much less of a free for all for Cav....but he didnt.....

You also seem to think that sprinters "cant climb." Ok they re not as fast as the 5-6 best climbers in the world, but if you think they re having an easy day in the autobus then you ve been seriously misinformed. For most riders (read Cav's book for a couple of stories, there are others too), staying in the bus is massive challenge

Having such a draconian rule would add NOTHING to the racing (how many people watch the bus come in on the telly, usually Eurosport has switched to the Tennis ffs). All it would do would nullify most of the other 17 days when they re not in the mountains

I also wonder if this discussion would have been so long if Tyler Hamilton had won green apart for the british guy, Doesnt Cav know we re supposed to suck at everything? What the flip!!

RichN95.

greasedscotsman wrote:

Mind you, not sure how my idea zeroing points would affect them either, but there you go. I didn't say it was perfect!

I don't really care why the time limit exists

Not sure what you can do with something like the Floyd Landis thing in '06,

Don't know what the answer is there.

And that's why you're not organising Grand Tours.

Your ideas rely on a slavishly dogmatic devotion to a number which has been quickly thought up by someone in a meeting many months before. With your ideas there is no flexibility if that person's estimates turn out to be wrong. Let's just plough ahead regardless of how badly it wrecks the competition. The number is god. The number is the alpha and the omega. The number is more important than the race. More important than the viewers. More important than the sponsors. Thou shalt have no number but the number.

But what about the number, which is typically about 16%. Why is it 16%? Why not 17%, or 10% or 25%? What is it about this number that gives you so much faith in it?


Basically, it comes down to this. Do you want to see the best race with the best racers or do you want that compromised by unyielding devotion to the number?

greasedscotsman

RichN95 wrote:

And that's why you're not organising Grand Tours.

Your ideas rely on a slavishly dogmatic devotion to a number which has been quickly thought up by someone in a meeting many months before. With your ideas there is no flexibility if that person's estimates turn out to be wrong. Let's just plough ahead regardless of how badly it wrecks the competition. The number is god. The number is the alpha and the omega. The number is more important than the race. More important than the viewers. More important than the sponsors. Thou shalt have no number but the number.

But what about the number, which is typically about 16%. Why is it 16%? Why not 17%, or 10% or 25%? What is it about this number that gives you so much faith in it?


Basically, it comes down to this. Do you want to see the best race with the best racers or do you want that compromised by unyielding devotion to the number?

iainf72

Come to think of it, I'd get rid of all the novelty jerseys in all the Grand Tours.

Novelty being anything that isn't the overall leaders jersey.

ddraver

greasedscotsman wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

And that's why you're not organising Grand Tours.

Your ideas rely on a slavishly dogmatic devotion to a number which has been quickly thought up by someone in a meeting many months before. With your ideas there is no flexibility if that person's estimates turn out to be wrong. Let's just plough ahead regardless of how badly it wrecks the competition. The number is god. The number is the alpha and the omega. The number is more important than the race. More important than the viewers. More important than the sponsors. Thou shalt have no number but the number.

But what about the number, which is typically about 16%. Why is it 16%? Why not 17%, or 10% or 25%? What is it about this number that gives you so much faith in it?


Basically, it comes down to this. Do you want to see the best race with the best racers or do you want that compromised by unyielding devotion to the number?

Think we should take that as a win Rich!

greasedscotsman

ddraver wrote:

Think we should take that as a win Rich!

I think Iainf72 wins with his idea!

Jez mon

Would it be feasible to move the Tour of Cali to a post tour spot...It's current position, going head to head with the Giro is stupid and divisive. BUT it appears to be relatively successful and whether we like it or not, a successful race in the USA is probably necessary for the sports long term survival...

I would try more methods to ban dodgy doctors and hangers on...the uci could make a black list of dodgy docs, and any riders found dealing with them get an automatic ban. Definitely unworkable in reality, but I think it's an angle which might be worth looking at for the future.

salsiccia1

I'm not a fan of the current Green jersey competition. I'd prefer to see it as a proper consistency jersey - i.e. points being the same on every stage regardless of terrain, and no intermediate points. And then have a sprinters jersey with points on the non-hilly stage finishes only and intermediate sprint points.

As much as I admire Cav's achievements, the points jersey should be a reward for a Kelly-type rider not a Cav-type, IMO.

salsiccia1

Jez mon wrote:

Would it be feasible to move the Tour of Cali to a post tour spot...It's current position, going head to head with the Giro is stupid and divisive. BUT it appears to be relatively successful and whether we like it or not, a successful race in the USA is probably necessary for the sports long term survival...

Why not put it where the Vuelta used to be?

rick_chasey

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Would it be feasible to move the Tour of Cali to a post tour spot...It's current position, going head to head with the Giro is stupid and divisive. BUT it appears to be relatively successful and whether we like it or not, a successful race in the USA is probably necessary for the sports long term survival...

Why not put it where the Vuelta used to be?

I recon, and this is a bit of a guess, that the ToC really benefits from the big names using it as a Tour warmup.

For a lot of guys like Boonen, Cancellara, the Schlecks, it's the first race they're seen after the classics.

Putting it where the Vuelta used to be wouldn't really allow for that.

afx237vi

My solution to the time limit problem. It's so obvious I'm amazed no-one has thought of it before.

1. Scrap the time limit. It's stupid and you need a maths degree to understand it.

2. Ban team buses and soigneurs at the finish line. Instead, erect a holding area for riders who've completed the stage. You know, like the sign-on at the start. But at the finish. A marquee in the car park.

3. Make the holding area as no-frills as possible. A bit draughty, those plastic garden chairs to sit on, no buffet. If you want to be really cruel, play Carlton Kirby's commentaries over the tannoy.

4. Put a big red novelty button at one end of the holding area with a sign that says "I'M A CYCLIST GET ME OUT OF HERE".

5. Pick a completely quantifiable and totally non-arbitrary number, like, say, ooh, 75%. Once a cyclist finishes a stage, he gets to push the button. If 75% of the peloton pushes the button, they all get to go back to the hotel, get a massage etc. Any cyclist left out on the road once 75% is reached are booted off the race for being lazy ne'er-do-wells.

Think about it. It would introduce a whole new level of skullduggery and recrimination that is totally missing from cycling. Imagine that Cav is out on the road, heroically getting turbo-bottled up Alpe d'Huez, within 1km of the finish... the on-screen graphic shows us that 74% of the bunch is a bit bored and wants to get away from Ned Boulting and Matt Rendell and OH MY GOD BERNIE EISEL JUST PUSHED THE BUTTON. We'd be talking about that one for years.

Seriously, it would be awesome. Just the type of innovation cycling needs. Pat, if you're reading... call me.

greasedscotsman

Nice afx237vi, like it, but I think the Tour would be better if the whole race was made an elimination or devil, like they do on the track. Eliminate say 9 riders a stage, that would leave 9 riders left (I think, have to run that past RichN95, he's good with numbers...) for the final stage in Paris, take one rider out per lap, rider left is the winner!

No need for any time limits. Well, no need for any timings at all!

RichN95.

greasedscotsman wrote:

Nice afx237vi, like it, but I think the Tour would be better if the whole race was made an elimination or devil, like they do on the track. Eliminate say 9 riders a stage, that would leave 9 riders left (I think, have to run that past RichN95, he's good with numbers...) for the final stage in Paris, take one rider out per lap, rider left is the winner!

No need for any time limits. Well, no need for any timings at all!

Nine's correct as long as no-one abandons. However, given the likely carnage at the end of every flat stage, you'll probably run out of cyclists around about stage 12

greasedscotsman

RichN95 wrote:

Nine's correct as long as no-one abandons. However, given the likely carnage at the end of every flat stage, you'll probably run out of cyclists around about stage 12

If 4 riders abandon on the 1st stage, you only eliminate 5. If 10 abandon on stage 2, nobody gets eliminated and you then take 8 on the following stage. I think? Something like that. I'm sure you'll let me know if that's wrong...