Vision 2020

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bahahahahahahahahahahaha

Just as you know more about cycling than everyone else because you have been watching since the ancient times of 1999, I know more about me because I've been watching me since 1972.

Richmond Racer 2

RichN95 wrote:

You do all understand that 'everyone' includes myself, don't you? One thing I've never lacked is self-awareness.

We-ll....

rick_chasey

Enjoy the rest of your Wednesday.

---


Anyway, route innovation is under-examined.

The route maketh the race.

There needs to be more experimentation at either end of the distance spectrum.

That's where we could see a genuine change.

Richmond Racer 2

OK, Rick, gis your game-changing route ideas

(I freely admit I dont have a scooby, so no agenda here)

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

OK, Rick, gis your game-changing route ideas

(I freely admit I dont have a scooby, so no agenda here)

IMO the key to exciting GT racing is getting more favourite v favourite action. i.e. getting rid of most of the riders through selection.

There are 2 ways to do this. Either make them so short the top riders go balls out from the gun (which we’ve seen on some of the really short stages). I.e. sub 150km. We’ve seen some very exciting stages on these types of stages, and I think the lack of fear is exciting. This is essentially what happens in 1 day races, where riders needn’t worry about being pooped the next day.

However, without wanting to come all Dr. Ferrari here, that tests the engine, but not the tank.

I reckon part of the problem of this year’s Tour was all the mileage was gotten out of the way fairly early, leaving the big mountain stages short of km. Over multiple stages therefore, having short mountain stages just doesn’t shift the domestiques because no big rider, however big, can go balls out from the gun for 150km for 3 or 4 days on the trot, and it leaves everyone relatively fresher, so selection is harder to achieve. So instead you had the usual mountain stages but without the sufficient difficulty to put anyone in any real trouble, so it became like a glorified sprint stage with prettier views.

So you need to get rid of them another way; distance.

Distance ultimately fatigues everyone, and as we see in what would be very flat for a sub 150km race, MSR at 300km is surprisingly selective.

Distance will also allow the top riders to rise to the top.

So my proposal is multiple 220km+ MTF stages to get the level of fatigue high enough to get a decent selection, and then test the engine in very short, sub 150km stages.

If we assume that we test different sides of riders by having different types of stages; flat, hilly, TT, mountains; why not also test the other parameter; distance?

We all know riders who do better than the rest of the time at given distances.

Lanterne_Rogue

Half way through a stage race, start all riders in a team at time intervals that are a multiple of their current fastest rider (have a laugh - make each second worth two minutes on the road). Eg if Chris Froome is five seconds clear, Sky get a ten minute head-start. Watch the inevitable chaos as teams work out whether they're better off staying away or joining up.

Full disclaimer; I have keratoconus. 2020 vision is not really my thing...

joelsim

Has anyone mentioned mythical Hungarian super-motors yet?

Or self-awareness?

iainf72

Why not have the same route consistently?

Or broadly the same route - Have standard stages that are in GT's. Maybe constantly trying to engineering a result is wrecking things? Maybe we should make teams bigger?

thegibdog

Get rid of the Vuelta, push the Tour back to August and have a summer classics season in July.

m.r.m.

Live POV footage that let's the viewer choose which rider's POV he wants to switch to will be the game changer to attract people to TV's. Ideally you'd have a overall coverage with cuts to select POV's like a "Red Zone Channel" with the option to manually switch to Cav or Sagan or Froome.
I'd love to see more of that especially on descents.

RichN95.

thegibdog wrote:

Get rid of the Vuelta, push the Tour back to August and have a summer classics season in July.

New classics or existing ones?
Does the Worlds move to July too?
What happens after the Tour?

salsiccia1

Do nothing. It's the least disruptive and most acceptable thing to do.

Cycling is followed by many because of the traditions, the history and the subtle nuances. Going against those things might attract some new followers, but it could alienate a lot more of the long-term fans. I know people like Vaughters and others want to make the sport more appealing to the non-traditional markets (and make more money) but cycling alienates its core followers at its peril.

I don't think sponsors are leaving cycling because the sport is fundamentally in need of change, they're leaving because most of the European economy has been fucked into a cocked hat. But when/if the economy turns up again, they'll be back.

thegibdog

RichN95 wrote:

thegibdog wrote:

Get rid of the Vuelta, push the Tour back to August and have a summer classics season in July.

New classics or existing ones?

A bit of both. Stick Lombardy in there, give San Sebastian a purpose (Lombardy prep), create a one day race in the north of England (vested interest!).

Does the Worlds move to July too?

Yeah, why not, could have it as the culmination of the second classics season.

What happens after the Tour?

Everyone reflects on how great the new season format was. The second round of classics gave the one day racers something to focus on after spring. The extra time between the Giro and the Tour gave stage racers a chance to double up without affecting their Tour chances. And nobody missed the Vuelta because nobody watched it anyway.

RichN95.

thegibdog wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

thegibdog wrote:

Get rid of the Vuelta, push the Tour back to August and have a summer classics season in July.

New classics or existing ones?

A bit of both. Stick Lombardy in there, give San Sebastian a purpose (Lombardy prep), create a one day race in the north of England (vested interest!).

Does the Worlds move to July too?

Yeah, why not, could have it as the culmination of the second classics season.

What happens after the Tour?

Everyone reflects on how great the new season format was. The second round of classics gave the one day racers something to focus on after spring. The extra time between the Giro and the Tour gave stage racers a chance to double up without affecting their Tour chances. And nobody missed the Vuelta because nobody watched it anyway.

Good ideas. The current placement of the Tour is a black hole in the middle of the year and Lombardy always seems like the black sheep of the monuments.

m.r.m.

I think instability of teams and brands harms cycling more than the economy in terms of sponsors. Giving out 3 or 5 year licences would help, since everyone get's some planning security.

yorkshireraw

The biggest race of the year finishes with the winner coming across the line, halfway down the field.
Make the last day of a GT (or try it out at least in a 1-week stage race) a draft-legal TT on road bikes, with riders setting off with their time gaps i.e. Froome has 2 minutes - he sets off alone 2 mins ahead of Quintana etc.
The person who crosses line first then wins the race. The intrigues comes from does Quintana wait for the guy in 3rd to try and work together to catch the leader etc, but risk shipping more time while he does.
Everyone looks back at the drama of '89 - this would take it to the logical extreme.

yorkshireraw

M.R.M. wrote:

I think instability of teams and brands harms cycling more than the economy in terms of sponsors. Giving out 3 or 5 year licences would help, since everyone get's some planning security.

This was one of Vaughters key points. Whether you like him or not, you can't have a sport relying on sponsor funded teams, where the team cannot guarantee to that sponsor it will be in the biggest race in world or not. He's absolutely correct.

rick_chasey

YorkshireRaw wrote:

you can't have a sport relying on sponsor funded teams, where the team cannot guarantee to that sponsor it will be in the biggest race in world or not. He's absolutely correct.

So what's cycling been doing then?

With rising team budgets & salaries for riders & staff?

Richmond Racer 2

Rick Chasey wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

you can't have a sport relying on sponsor funded teams, where the team cannot guarantee to that sponsor it will be in the biggest race in world or not. He's absolutely correct.

So what's cycling been doing then?

With rising team budgets & salaries for riders & staff?

Not a JV fan, but to be fair its the likes of Tinkoff and Sky that have been jacking up the costs, not making it any easier for the smaller budget teams who cant pony up budgets of 25-30m

rick_chasey

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

you can't have a sport relying on sponsor funded teams, where the team cannot guarantee to that sponsor it will be in the biggest race in world or not. He's absolutely correct.

So what's cycling been doing then?

With rising team budgets & salaries for riders & staff?

Not a JV fan, but to be fair its the likes of Tinkoff and Sky that have been jacking up the costs, not making it any easier for the smaller budget teams who cant pony up budgets of 25-30m

Vaughters wants one thing, and that's to be able to cash out. He's saying it quite explicitly on there. "I want to sell [my] equity [to make loads of money]".

It's just a business pitch.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Vaughters wants one thing, and that's to be able to cash out. He's saying it quite explicitly on there. "I want to sell [my] equity [to make loads of money]".

It's just a business pitch.

But his point is that for people to invest in teams, rather than donate, there needs to be some actual equity that is sellable. As it is all he owns is a few vehicles and some plaid socks.

rick_chasey

Cycling teams have no real geography. They don't have ties to local communities in any way.

It's the races that have that. The races are the assets. They have the geography, they are the ones that bring the fans out. Very few people watch the Dauphine despite having most of the big riders - they all come out for the Tour. We've said it a million times here, "no rider is bigger than the Tour" and the same can be said for the teams.

Vaughters is annoyed that it's the races who have the value, not his team, because he's a team owner, not a race owner. That's why people like Tinkoff want some of the ASO revenue. Because they have the value.

ASO gets it. The Tour has sellable equity. As do most races.

If anything, it's the races that need investment, not the teams.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's the races that have that. The races are the assets. They have the geography, they are the ones that bring the fans out. Very few people watch the Dauphine despite having most of the big riders - they all come out for the Tour. We've said it a million times here, "no rider is bigger than the Tour" and the same can be said for the teams.

I wouldn't even say they have the geography - they don't own the roads. What they have is the intellectual property of the brand - something ASO know well from running the Dakar rally an ocean away from Dakar. The question is how strong are some of these brands? Not many could survive a withdrawal of team support on the strength of name alone.

And conversely, a small race like the Herald Sun Tour will be selling itself quite nicely off the back of Froome, Chaves and Gerrans - shouldn't they get a slice (they probably are)

DeVlaeminck

M.R.M. wrote:

Live POV footage that let's the viewer choose which rider's POV he wants to switch to will be the game changer to attract people to TV's. Ideally you'd have a overall coverage with cuts to select POV's like a "Red Zone Channel" with the option to manually switch to Cav or Sagan or Froome.
I'd love to see more of that especially on descents.

Sounds awful - how about they invest in a decent English language commentator, some more crowd barriers and maybe another camera motorbike.

mr_poll

GTs do tend to dominate the calendar - years ago the endurance aspect was part of the spectacle - and although the ability to last 3 weeks is still a factor the sharp end is often decided by a couple of key stages. Why not change this, remove the long transition stages with the obv sprint at the end and rest days?

GTs to run over 2 weeks and 3 weekends - start on a Friday night (for a good TV audience) with a crit, prologue or TTT - run through to the Sunday - no rest days so 17 days of racing as opposed to the current 21.

This might also have the effect of seeing the GC boys have a proper crack at two if not all three - maybe Oleg could return with his £1 million challenge!

Richmond Racer 2

mr_poll wrote:

GTs do tend to dominate the calendar - years ago the endurance aspect was part of the spectacle - and although the ability to last 3 weeks is still a factor the sharp end is often decided by a couple of key stages. Why not change this, remove the long transition stages with the obv sprint at the end and rest days?

GTs to run over 2 weeks and 3 weekends - start on a Friday night (for a good TV audience) with a crit, prologue or TTT - run through to the Sunday - no rest days so 17 days of racing as opposed to the current 21.

This might also have the effect of seeing the GC boys have a proper crack at two if not all three - maybe Oleg could return with his £1 million challenge!

Oof Pollster, I know Christmas is coming, but there's no need to channel a Charles Dickens factory owner character. Brutal!

ddraver

I disagree with Rick's snobbery but the reality is that cycling is a difficult sport to follow whatever people do. It's an awful lot of nothing happening for a few minitues - even a few seconds of excitment, which means the boring/not boring ratio is terrible. However, the long races are 100% part of the sport. Paris Roubaix would not be a classic if it was a 1 hour blast across a few sectors and the velodrome...

It's like test cricket. You have to be in it for the long haul and many people, many of whom may be serious cyclists themselves, just CBA

Cycling has track cycling or cyclocross for it's twenty20, build on that.

m.r.m.

And that is exactly why POV camera angles work. It's just like Formula 1. It's fun to see how close riders are to each other and to experience the chaos of the peloton when entering a cobbled sector or descending a mountain. Much of that happens in a part of the race when no significant selection happens or when TV coverage at times hasn't even started.

rick_chasey

So no-one has anything to say about stage distances?

ddraver

You and I fundamentally about riders/routes making the race. So for me, no.