Prologues

specialgueststar

Is it a dying stage? Didnt GT's nearly always start with a prologue? In the last year Vuelta Giro and Tour opted out .

TheBigBean

I think this is an interesting question. I was hoping an expert might come along to provide the stats. Maybe they are just out of fashion at the moment.

specialgueststar

and Tour next year of course in Yorkshire and Vuelta this year starts with ttt

ddraver

Theory - they work well as a show to the local population of the area the particular race starts in. However they re bloody boring for anyone else in the world and usually irrelevant to the rest of the GT. As cycling has gloabalised and become watchable by so many people in different formats, organisers are starting to realise that the rest of the world needs a show too..and a prologue does nt give one!

I'd happily have any length race with no TT's and certainly no TTT's (Ok, there are strong reasons to have a TT, although none of them are to do with entertainment value)

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

Theory - they work well as a show to the local population of the area the particular race starts in. However they re bloody boring for anyone else in the world and usually irrelevant to the rest of the GT. As cycling has gloabalised and become watchable by so many people in different formats, organisers are starting to realise that the rest of the world needs a show too..and a prologue does nt give one!

I'd happily have any length race with no TT's and certainly no TTT's (Ok, there are strong reasons to have a TT, although none of them are to do with entertainment value)

Bah humbug

markhewitt1978

Richmond Racer wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Theory - they work well as a show to the local population of the area the particular race starts in. However they re bloody boring for anyone else in the world and usually irrelevant to the rest of the GT. As cycling has gloabalised and become watchable by so many people in different formats, organisers are starting to realise that the rest of the world needs a show too..and a prologue does nt give one!

I'd happily have any length race with no TT's and certainly no TTT's (Ok, there are strong reasons to have a TT, although none of them are to do with entertainment value)

Bah humbug

I have to say I agree. Most of the time when watching the Tour, I'm like "oh it's a time trial today" . The mountain time trial is slightly more interesting, but not much. I'd be quite happy if there were no time trials at all.

TheBigBean

I think prologues are more entertaining than TTs. They are often technical and provide a bit of entertainment. Plus, if the first few stages are all sprint finishes, it can be hard to work out who is going to be the overall leader.

gpreeves

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Theory - they work well as a show to the local population of the area the particular race starts in. However they re bloody boring for anyone else in the world and usually irrelevant to the rest of the GT. As cycling has gloabalised and become watchable by so many people in different formats, organisers are starting to realise that the rest of the world needs a show too..and a prologue does nt give one!

I'd happily have any length race with no TT's and certainly no TTT's (Ok, there are strong reasons to have a TT, although none of them are to do with entertainment value)

Bah humbug

I have to say I agree. Most of the time when watching the Tour, I'm like "oh it's a time trial today" . The mountain time trial is slightly more interesting, but not much. I'd be quite happy if there were no time trials at all.

TIme trials can be enjoyable if you're roadside. The uphill TT at this year's Giro ranks as one of my favourite sporting days out.

And it's always enjoyable to watch on TV if the GC is decided by the final TT, as in the 2012 Giro or this year's Tour of Poland.

Not sure how I feel about prologues though, I guess they serve a purpose in getting the ball rolling and individually showcasing all of the riders.

jtomes1993

Spectating live the prologue is the best stage you can watch! Was lucky enough to be in Rotterdam in 2010, one of the best days ever!

From a TV point of view they're pretty dull. Would much rather see them open up with a medium mountain/classic hilly stage any day!

dougzz

I'm sure it was Ianf (apologies if I have it wrong) that ventured the opinion in this year's tour that the prologue creates a basis for the yellow jersey and settles down the initial sprints. The first day sprint in Corsica was additionally chaotic because it's not just the stage win in contention but the yellow jersey. So the sprint becomes even more crazy than usual as anyone and everyone has a go.

thomthom

They were lucky it was a sprint stage. A slightly uphill finish as the first stage of a GC is a recipe for disaster.

AchillesLeftKnee

Personal opinion... never liked prologues because they're to short to have a bearing on anything, and they remove the chance of sprinters from getting a pop at the yellow early on. Really enjoyed OGE's yellow antics this year, and that was only possible because there was no prologue.

That said, I quite like the idea of a sort of uber-prologue - half way in length between a prologue and a shorter ITT (12-15km?) - so the GC guys would actually have to give a proper monkeys about it, and the flat-out TT specialists could really show off early on. I'm sure such a stage could still work in the round-the-town prologue format, and might provide a bit more TV viewing interest because, hey, it might actually matter.

afx237vi

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

That said, I quite like the idea of a sort of uber-prologue - half way in length between a prologue and a shorter ITT (12-15km?) - so the GC guys would actually have to give a proper monkeys about it, and the flat-out TT specialists could really show off early on. I'm sure such a stage could still work in the round-the-town prologue format, and might provide a bit more TV viewing interest because, hey, it might actually matter.

They started the 2005 TdF with a 19km TT, which was a bit rubbish, especially when Armstrong caught Ullrich for a minute, more or less killing the entire race on day 1.

me-109

They are there to give the Depart town some return for their money as a host town. There is not much to be had from just waving them off on a road stage. Maybe because there are so many transfers these days, not starting where the previous day ended, that there are many other towns in the same boat? Why then should the first host town get an extra stage?

rick_chasey

ddraver wrote:

I'd happily have any length race with no TT's and certainly no TTT's (Ok, there are strong reasons to have a TT, although none of them are to do with entertainment value)

Yes there are.

The fundamental basis to any good GC battle is one where the rider who is better uphill has to compensate for his TTing skills and visa versa.

TTs are a necessary evil to improve the spectacle of the rest of the race.

rick_chasey

Jtomes1993 wrote:

Spectating live the prologue is the best stage you can watch! Was lucky enough to be in Rotterdam in 2010, one of the best days ever!

Apart from the p!ssing rain and cutting wind....

rick_chasey

Prologues are a great way to spot form.

I like it. Gives context to the race. You want to see how each rider is doing. Difficult to see that all at once in a mass start.

The only reason they're out of favour with the Tour is simply because they figured Cancellara breaking the record for number of days in yellow and never winning (and NEVER will) was beginning to border on pure favoritism (though who can blame them).

Then again, that was also because they got rid of time bonuses, so it gave sprinters no way of grabbing yellow if they did alright in the prologue.

Yellow Peril

They are a useful and entertaining card in a race organisers pack. As Rick says above they can play into a non contenders hand for a period of time then again the race organiser could consider a hilly stage shortly after to re-shuffle the order.

blazing_saddles

Not in favour of week long stage races having both a prologue and an ITT.
One or the other, not both, preferably the latter.
They always leave me with the: "day before the race starts" feeling.

FJS

I think for the TdF it has mostly to do with who has paid for the Grand Depart. Corsica, Yorkshire or Vendee are larger regions that need long stages to show off their countryside. Cities like Rotterdam or Monaco, or smaller regions like Liege with a dominant city like to have a full day in town, which you get with a prologue.
If 2015 is Lille or 2016 Florence, there'll be a prologue again

Richmond Racer

FJS wrote:

I think for the TdF it has mostly to do with who has paid for the Grand Depart. Corsica, Yorkshire or Vendee are larger regions that need long stages to show off their countryside. Cities like Rotterdam or Monaco, or smaller regions like Liege with a dominant city like to have a full day in town, which you get with a prologue.
If 2015 is Lille or 2016 Florence, there'll be a prologue again

Agreed. Last year Liege would have paid a bundle and ensured that they got full VFM from the Prologue and the Stage 1 start

greasedscotsman

Rick Chasey wrote:

...and cutting wind....

You are not a hardcore roadside fan, are you?

Oh and for what it's worth, TTs are dull, from the sofa or the roadside. They should be included as a GT should be an all round test of a riders abilities. But I'd rather the first stage was a road stage.

oneof1982

TheBigBean wrote:

I think this is an interesting question. I was hoping an expert might come along to provide the stats. Maybe they are just out of fashion at the moment.

No expert, just too much time on my hands. Prologue was first introduced in 1967 (Year Tom Simpson died on Ventoux). Used every year since except 2008, 2011 and 2013. Prior to that, since 1955, it was common to have two short "actes" (one short TT or TTT and one longer road race) making up the stage early in the tour, on either stages 1,2 or 3.

In the early days of the tour, opening stages of 380k were not uncommon (Paris - Le Havre)

markhewitt1978

AchillesLeftKnee wrote:

Personal opinion... never liked prologues because they're to short to have a bearing on anything, and they remove the chance of sprinters from getting a pop at the yellow early on. Really enjoyed OGE's yellow antics this year, and that was only possible because there was no prologue.

I was thinking this out on my bike this morning.
I think they actually had it right back in the day, when there was a prologue, which basically set the GC order before the start of the mountains, but then for the first week there were time bonuses for stage wins, meaning a sprinter would often end up wearing yellow as a result, mosly Mario Cipollini!

mike6

Rick Chasey wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I'd happily have any length race with no TT's and certainly no TTT's (Ok, there are strong reasons to have a TT, although none of them are to do with entertainment value)

Yes there are.

The fundamental basis to any good GC battle is one where the rider who is better uphill has to compensate for his TTing skills and visa versa.

TTs are a necessary evil to improve the spectacle of the rest of the race.

Spot on.

If you take out the TTs and TTTs, why stop there? Get rid of the flat stages as well, don't want sprinters winning anything, so only the climbers have a chance of winning a stage race.

I enjoy the testing stages of stage races, with the proviso that there should be lots of time checks on the stage, and the coverage should keep you up to date with who is gaining and who is losing time.

Actually, I wonder how it would change the GC in a GT if the long (100k say) TTs came back into fashion, like when men were men? Or would a TT of this sort of length suit the hard man/rouler more than the specialist tester?

Yellow Peril

Does anybody know if a GT ever had a MTF on a HC climb as the first stage?

FJS

mike6 wrote:

Actually, I wonder how it would change the GC in a GT if the long (100k say) TTs came back into fashion, like when men were men? Or would a TT of this sort of length suit the hard man/rouler more than the specialist tester?

It would obviously benefit the TT specialists, but not necessarily. All through the 90s the TdF used to have what now seems ridiculous amounts of TT kms with usually two 60 km ITTs (the 1991 TdF had a 73 km ITT; the 1992 one a prologue, two 65 km ITTs plus a 64 km TTT!!). Still, riders like Virenque and Chiappucci got on the podium, and the TdF Pantani won had 116 kms of individual TTing.

About 100 km TTs, the GP des Nations was 90 km until 1990, and 70 km after, mostly won by what you could call hard man rouleurs (Sean Kelly, Thomas Wegmuller, Jens Voigt, Michael Rich) but also regular TTers (Boardman, Rominger, Gonchar)

TheBigBean

Yellow Peril wrote:

Does anybody know if a GT ever had a MTF on a HC climb as the first stage?

I can only see that working if it was part of a 200 km TT.

salsiccia1

FJS wrote:

[All through the 90s the TdF used to have what now seems ridiculous amounts of TT kms with usually two 60 km ITTs (the 1991 TdF had a 73 km ITT; the 1992 one a prologue, two 65 km ITTs plus a 64 km TTT!!). Still, riders like Virenque and Chiappucci got on the podium, and the TdF Pantani won had 116 kms of individual TTing.

With all due respect, not the greatest examples to prove your point!

TheBigBean

Roche vs Delgado would be another example.

Paul 8v

Maybe they will opt for a prologue after the carnage of stage 1 at the TDF, a bit safer when a full compliment of riders aren't all going banzai for yellow on the first stage!