Heretical thought: two week GTs?

No_Ta_Doctor

Ok, maybe it's not that heretical, and it's come up in discussion more than once, but I've finally come round to thinking this would be a good change.

With three week GTs we know that the demands of a single race are so large that the top riders can only target one GT per season. It's possible to target the giro and Vuelta, but if you ride the Tour then it's unlikely you'll be riding either of the other two in peak form.

There are a couple of effects this has. Firstly, we don't get to see all the top riders in one race (unless they crash out of the Tour and target the Vuelta as consolation ). This is a shame, we'd all love to have seen Quintana at the Tour this year, and we'd probably still have a race to watch if he'd been there.

Secondly, the effort put into winning a GT, the Tour especially, seems to take a huge toll on a rider, they rarely perform as well the season after.

Two week GTs would let us see the top riders against each other, throughout the season, with riders performing more consistently across the seasons.

There's obviously a load of tradition that will stop this ever being considered, and the Tour would see this change as a huge dilution. The giro and vuelta would benefit though, as the quality of field would increase for them.

The_Boy

No tA Doctor wrote:

Secondly, the effort put into winning a GT, the Tour especially, seems to take a huge toll on a rider, they rarely perform as well the season after..

I've seen this point quoted an awful lot as fact over the past couple of season, but I'm really not convinced it's true.

Of the three who finished on the podium at the tour in 2012, the only one to struggle the following season was Wiggins, and that seems to largely accepted to be due to his not being arsed.

Froome went on to win, and nibbles would probably have done giro-vuelta double if he'd been a bit cooler headed. Plus he looks nailed on for the tour this year. Equally, quintana doesn't seem to have paid the price for his second place last year.

Unless we're actually saying that winning somehow takes more out of an athlete than finishing second or third? That seems silly to me.

ETA: I've voted no on the poll, though not unwilling to be persuaded.

No_Ta_Doctor

Well none of those podium places you mention had to defend the yellow jersey. So yes, I think winning it probably takes a fair amount more out of you than finishing on the podium.

While Wiggins head was definitely not right last year I thinks it's plausible that much of his problem was that he'd made his sacrifices, won his tour and couldn't quite get his head around trying to do the same again. Chuck in the Froome rivalry and that's blow up time. Froome hasn't looked all that great this season and has suffered illness. Horner looks like a freak one off. Nibbles has had over a year since his giro win to get ready for the tour.

Giro vuelta doubles are possible, partly due to the calendar but also due to the reduced quality of the field.

Yellow Peril

What next? substitutions? Sorry it's a no from me.

No_Ta_Doctor

Yellow Peril wrote:

What next? substitutions? Sorry it's a no from me.

Well I'm not actually changing any of the rules of racing, just shortening the GTs. But fair enough, I don't discount tradition as a compelling argument. I just think we'd get better racing from 2 week GTs.

No_Ta_Doctor

For the nay Sayers, out of interest, is it just a question of tradition, that GTs are supposed to be 3 weeks long and that's the way you like them (fair enough) or do you think there's a racing benefit to 3 week races?

To put it another way, if there were no GTs and we were inventing them now, would you want 2 week or 3 week races?

DeVlaeminck

I don't accept the point about it taking a toll the next season either. Riders sometimes struggle to peak for a specific 3 weeks or they aren't as good one year as the next but that isn't because of the physical demands of a grand tour. Wiggins didn't react well to finding himself demoted after his Tour win - blame Wiggins or Brailsford or a combination of the two but I don't think it's physical. As for Froome - well who knows what form he was in but if we are talking about physical demands we know Kerrison believes in very intense training and some people are asking whether that is a factor in Sky riders leaving their best form in training.

There's more of a point about riding more than one in a season - especially the Giro/Tour. Personally I'd scrap the Vuelta, move the Giro back a couple of weeks and move the Tour back a month but leave them as 3 week races. I'd like to see two grand tours of more or less equal status - I don't see that the Vuelta has anything like the same value.

The_Boy

No tA Doctor wrote:

Well none of those podium places you mention had to defend the yellow jersey. So yes, I think winning it probably takes a fair amount more out of you than finishing on the podium.

While Wiggins head was definitely not right last year I thinks it's plausible that much of his problem was that he'd made his sacrifices, won his tour and couldn't quite get his head around trying to do the same again. Chuck in the Froome rivalry and that's blow up time. Froome hasn't looked all that great this season and has suffered illness. Horner looks like a freak one off. Nibbles has had over a year since his giro win to get ready for the tour.

Giro vuelta doubles are possible, partly due to the calendar but also due to the reduced quality of the field.

Nah, sorry. I'm just not buying it. Defending the yellow certainly puts a strain on one's team, but I don't see that it makes a monumental difference to the rider in yellow in terms of physical energy expended. They surely don't win by expending more energy effort, they win by being the strongest? It might very well be emotionally draining, but that can be recovered from. Especially since this whole line of reasoning has often been brought up as being a part of the new, clean era of cycling.

All the points you make about Wiggins are true, but it seems to me they're also largely exclusive to Wiggins. Nibali didn't sit on his hands from the giro win - he went to the vuelta and raced hard for the win (too hard, IMO). Froome looked monster strong in the dolphin until his crash.

Evans might be a contender for struggling post win, but he was ill for a large part of the following season and he and his wife had just adopted their first child. Plus he's almost as old as horner.

If we start seeing a definite trend over the next few years then it may well be a good reason to reduce the duration of races, but I'm not yet convinced that's what we have.

You might have a point about reducing the hegemony of the tour, but I'm not sure it's the best way of doing that. And I'm not even convinced that having *all* the best riders reaching against each other *all* of the time is that great tbh. Though I'm happy to accept I'm just weird on that point.

The_Boy

No tA Doctor wrote:

For the nay Sayers, out of interest, is it just a question of tradition, that GTs are supposed to be 3 weeks long and that's the way you like them (fair enough) or do you think there's a racing benefit to 3 week races?

To put it another way, if there were no GTs and we were inventing them now, would you want 2 week or 3 week races?

interesting question. I think a large part of the appeal of a GT is the building up of the narrative as the race goes on. Different stages appealing to different riders, rivalries building up over the course of the race and fluctuating form due to the attritional nature of the race.

Kinda hard to answer your question as it's been posed because we wouldn't have experience of either to base our decision on, but I think something would be lost in the change. It's whether anything else would be gained to make it worthwhile.

ugo.santalucia

Don't know... we would have missed Quintana comeback at the Giro 2014 and the drama of Horner winning the Vuelta 2013... there are things happening on the third week which are worth keeping

andyrac

Hmm, good question. I'd say no. Keep them to 3 weeks, if anything re-arrange when you hold them. As already said, move the Giro and have the Tour 2 weeks later. The Vuelta can move back to later in September - as can the WC's and Lombardy. Not that any of that would happen.

frenchfighter

I think you could make the Vuelta into two weeks as it is late season but then I don't think they would accept that.

I like the idea of a two week GT but it would mean a lot less of a country can be used (or longer transfers), difficulty when comparing it back in time (even if they are signifcantly different races) and the fans missing out on the unfolding story. I think it takes more talent and different abilities to win three weeks rather than two.

An alternative could be to put an extra rest day into a three week race and to throw in a lot of shorter stages (100km max).

dougzz

I'd have to say no, keep as is. But I would perhaps be persuaded if it was tried and seemed successful, but even then, often what seems right over a 1 or 2 time experiment, doesn't work in the long run. Surely part of the problem is that GTs are huge beasts, and no sponsor is going to want to see a third of the potential payback disappear.

RideOnTime

erm... no

tailwindhome

Biggest problem with a 3 week GT?
Who has the time to watch?

DeVlaeminck

No tA Doctor wrote:

While Wiggins head was definitely not right last year I thinks it's plausible that much of his problem was that he'd made his sacrifices, won his tour and couldn't quite get his head around trying to do the same again. Chuck in the Froome rivalry and that's blow up time.

Wouldn't necessarily disagree but none of which is related that much to the length of the Tour.

Yellow Peril

and by the same token you may as well make marathons 15 miles long so that top runners can enter more each year. GT's are GT's for a reason. It is an endurance test over 3 weeks of cycling

phreak

The problem is probably more of prestige than anything. I mean the classics are pretty tightly bunched together, but you won't get Cancellara or Boonen missing Flanders so they are fresh for Roubaix because they are both so prestigious.

If there was equal incentive to win each of the grand tours, then I'm sure you'd get all of the best riders competing in them.

ugo.santalucia

I think if Giro and Tour were shorter, they would try and pack the same mountains, reducing the number of flat stages... makes sense... net result is you won't see top contenders going for both. In the past they used to go for both because:

1) There was less money around, so they had to
2) There were more drugs around, so they could do both
3) There was less high level competition and preparation was less scientifically aimed at peaking over one period

phreak

Would we as fans accept a lower speed (maybe quality?) of racing if it meant all of the best riders competed in all three GTs?

No_Ta_Doctor

phreak wrote:

Would we as fans accept a lower speed (maybe quality?) of racing if it meant all of the best riders competed in all three GTs?

The riders set the speed. If you only ride one GT you can ride it faster than if you ride two or three. That's probably not the case if the GTs are only two weeks long. So with 3 week GTs there's an incentive to target one of them, and ride it as fast as possible. There's no way of making the top riders do all three, even if they were made to ride them they'd be coming in with the autobus in one or two of them.

If GTs were two weeks I imagine there would be some sprint stages sacrificed, and probably only one TT (as this year in the tour). You'd probably lose at least one MTF and a mid mountain stage as well. You'd only need one rest day though.

From a racing perspective I think it makes a lot of sense. More condensed, higher performance, less down to vagaries of luck (tired riders more likely to crash?), top riders in all the races.

I also think it might make it harder for big teams to hold onto talented GT riders as luxury domestiques. If your captain is going to ride all three you can't be palmed off with a Giro or Vuelta, so you look for a team that will give you the chance. It opens up the race as well, as riders who can perform well for two weeks but tail off in the third suddenly become viable leaders.

I accept that the three week GTs have a heroic, monumental effort involved, which makes winning one a really big thing, and I accept that this is what they've been historically, and there's a lot of tradition in cycling which shouldn't be lost for the sake of a tweak. But for pure racing, two week GTs would really open things up.

As an aside, wherever there's a performance gain to be had by cheating we'll have a risk of PEDs. But where seasons stand or fall on a single race we see a much larger incentive to cheat. The third week is the killer, that's where the advantage is the greatest, as the body starts to decline through exhaustion. Cut that off and the gains are smaller. Ride more races and each single GT is less make or break, you could have a successful season even without your TDF podium.

It'll never happen though. Part of me is happy about that, I like a good three week epic. But when I think of the racing we could see otherwise......

mr_poll

I can see some merit in this, agree it will never happen - although wasn't there some story the Vuelta was toying with a shorter format (more to do with budget I think) although now ASO have control it is very unlikely.

Don't think they should have a rest day though, like you say it is the exhaustion that makes the last week so a shorter format should push the riders for the full two weeks. You could also combine a sprint/transitional stage day with a TT
later in the day - think the tour of Britain did this a couple of years back.

iainf72

I'm in support of making them longer

:P

Like this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Tour_de_France

Although, being serious, I think the 3rd week is what makes the race. You'd get a different type of rider who could compete for a 2 week race. What they need to do is rotate who gets the July spot.

tailwindhome

iainf72 wrote:

I'm in support of making them longer

:P

Like this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Tour_de_France

You're too soft

http://www.ultracycling.com/old/results ... t2005.html

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Although, being serious, I think the 3rd week is what makes the race. You'd get a different type of rider who could compete for a 2 week race.

I'm not sure I agree. The one week stage races tend to be won by the same people who win or get close to winning the Grand Tours. There are some that benefit from the full three weeks (Sastre, Hesjedal, Menchov etc), but they're in a minority.

Personally, I think the Vuelta (definitely) and the Giro (possibly) could be chopped down to two weeks - 15 stages and a Friday evening prologue. Tighten things up. Use the rest day to make a large transition to use the geography as best as possible. Maybe have an old fashion split stage, With a short TTT and a short sprint stage on the same day.

It would encourage Tour GC riders to do another GT and that's good thing. The big names properly race each other all too rarely.

thegibdog

I voted yes. I think it'd be preferable to have the best GT riders at all the season's GTs, and I think that could happen if thy were two weeks long. The other option being dropping the Vuelta and pushing the Tour into August. The Grand Tours (as with any bike race) need to be long enough that the best rider will out; I don't think three weeks are needed for that, I reckon two weeks would be long enough. Usually by the end of the second week in a GT it is clear who the best rider is and if it's not it's because some riders are holding something in reserve for week 3. Having a two week tour would bring any action you might see in the third week into the second week and you'd have fewer filler stages.

I know it's tradition that the GTs are three weeks long. There used to be one day races over 500km long but there aren't anymore, and for good reason.

Macaloon

I've been banging on about the inevitable post Tour decline, but I agree it's arguable that the training regime is a factor too.

I'm not sure that the problem is the top tier guys not riding all the GTs. There's plenty of racers around to make compelling races. This year's Giro was great. We probably want the top racers to bring their top form to the Tour, rather than see a lesser spectacle. The problem is that we get so few showdowns. But if the Dauphiné is any guide, if these guys ride the same schedule next year we could be in for 3 or 4 events in a season. Which is probably plenty.

Another factor to consider is the parcours design. Give the riders something to work with and they've shown in the last 2 years that they'll deliver. It would be interesting to see if some fatigue element was lost by reducing the MTFs by half. No Alps one year. If the Giro took the same approach in the same year the double might be achievable.

blazing_saddles

No, just no.
It's about the race not who's in it.
The Volta is nigh on two weeks long and it sure as sh*t don't resemble a GT.

inseine

No tA Doctor wrote:

For the nay Sayers, out of interest, is it just a question of tradition, that GTs are supposed to be 3 weeks long and that's the way you like them (fair enough) or do you think there's a racing benefit to 3 week races?

To put it another way, if there were no GTs and we were inventing them now, would you want 2 week or 3 week races?

I don't remember the exact details but 'this week in cycling history' had an interesting pod about this. I'm sure the Vuelta used to be only 2 weeks, whereas the Tour of Portugal at the same time was 3 weeks, or possibly even longer.
Any tradition is certainly hasn't been in place since the beginning. It took the Tour 20 odd years to settle on 21 stages.

rick_chasey

Tour de suisse was already 10 days. Wouldn't look that different to that.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Tour de suisse was already 10 days. Wouldn't look that different to that.

Yeah, but it's ten days of not very much. A two week GT would be all killer, no filler. Can you really look at a Giro or Vuelta course and not find five stages you could manage without? There's plenty of stages which are just like other stages.