Prologues

2»

Comments

  • FJS
    FJS Posts: 4,820
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    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!
    Why not? They were still climbing specialists with a relatively poor TT, doped or not. Doesn't change the point that climbers can do well in a Tour de France with many TT kms, even though it makes it harder for them.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,556
    FJS - I think the main reason behind your point though, is that there aren't that many riders that can climb and TT well. In any given GT, it is rarely more than one, so the remaining podium places are occupied by climbers - they can usually TT better than the TTer can climb.

    I didn't like that period in the 90s because it meant there would only be one winner.
  • mike6
    mike6 Posts: 1,199
    FJS wrote:
    Salsiccia1 wrote:
    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!
    Why not? They were still climbing specialists with a relatively poor TT, doped or not. Doesn't change the point that climbers can do well in a Tour de France with many TT kms, even though it makes it harder for them.

    Well said that man. :D
  • FJS
    FJS Posts: 4,820
    edited August 2013
    TheBigBean wrote:
    FJS - I think the main reason behind your point though, is that there aren't that many riders that can climb and TT well. In any given GT, it is rarely more than one, so the remaining podium places are occupied by climbers - they can usually TT better than the TTer can climb.
    Granted, but that's no different with 50 or 150 km of TTing. And would those climbers getting onto the podium in the 90s have won the TdF with fewer TT kms? I'm not so sure. If last year's TT would have had 25 flat TT kms, or 200, rather than about 100, the winner would have been the same. Same this year. More TT kms just make the gaps bigger, the race decided earlier, and the racing more boring, but often in the end it will produce the same winner over three weeks.
    TheBigBean wrote:
    I didn't like that period in the 90s because it meant there would only be one winner.
    He didn't lose much time if any in the mountains though either...
  • markhewitt1978
    markhewitt1978 Posts: 7,614
    FJS wrote:
    Why not? They were still climbing specialists with a relatively poor TT, doped or not. Doesn't change the point that climbers can do well in a Tour de France with many TT kms, even though it makes it harder for them.

    Much like Quintana then. He stands a chance of winning the TdF in the future but it would be despite his TT skills not because of them.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,556
    FJS wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    I didn't like that period in the 90s because it meant there would only be one winner.
    He didn't lose much time if any in the mountains though either...

    There was that Chiappucci day, but yes, you're right.

Categories