Vision 2020

rick_chasey

Really? So how or why am I wrong?

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

Really? So how or why am I wrong?

Like some stages, you went on too long. You also went a bit flat at the end, and nobody likes a long sprint stage.

Seriously though, the issue with long stages with MTFs is that the peloton is most likely to soft pedal until the last climb. Stage racing isn't one day racing and never will be. MSR works because teams invest in it, because they have a strategy to win the race. GT riders teams won't invest in a long stage in the same way, they're far more worried about losing the race on a gruelling stage.

bobmcstuff

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Really? So how or why am I wrong?

Like some stages, you went on too long. You also went a bit flat at the end, and nobody likes a long sprint stage.

Seriously though, the issue with long stages with MTFs is that the peloton is most likely to soft pedal until the last climb. Stage racing isn't one day racing and never will be. MSR works because teams invest in it, because they have a strategy to win the race. GT riders teams won't invest in a long stage in the same way, they're far more worried about losing the race on a gruelling stage.

Yeah, but a race with all short stages would lose something would it not. Isn't it about having a balanced parcours.

No_Ta_Doctor

bobmcstuff wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Really? So how or why am I wrong?

Like some stages, you went on too long. You also went a bit flat at the end, and nobody likes a long sprint stage.

Seriously though, the issue with long stages with MTFs is that the peloton is most likely to soft pedal until the last climb. Stage racing isn't one day racing and never will be. MSR works because teams invest in it, because they have a strategy to win the race. GT riders teams won't invest in a long stage in the same way, they're far more worried about losing the race on a gruelling stage.

Yeah, but a race with all short stages would lose something would it not. Isn't it about having a balanced parcours.

Of course. I'm not advocating lots of short stages, just arguing that adding very long stages with MTFs wouldn't give us anything different.

rick_chasey

I don't understand your point.

I'm not saying the tactics on longer stages would be particularly different.

I'm saying there'd me more pronounced differentiation between riders and greater selection once it occurs.

I'm saying extra distance will do that.

Cumulatively, the extra distance will also add to the differentiation.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't understand your point.

I'm not saying the tactics on longer stages would be particularly different.

I'm saying there'd me more pronounced differentiation between riders and greater selection once it occurs.

I'm saying extra distance will do that.

Cumulatively, the extra distance will also add to the differentiation.

And I'm saying that I think that's unlikely, as I think the extra distance would be soft-peddled into having negligible effect.
In a three week stage race form and fatigue are hugely variable and not particularly predictable. No GC team will see a long MTF as anything other than a huge risk of their rider blowing up or knackering himself for the coming stages if it's ridden even moderately hard, so they'll all try and keep the pace as low as possible. That's actually quite a large tactical change from the shorter stages, where some teams will ride hard from the gun to put pressure on, or medium length where teams like Sky & Movistar start to crank up the pace both on earlier climbs and in the run-up to the final climbs.

And because it's a long stage they want to ride slow, with the possibility of the break gaining considerable time, the break will be restricted to complete no-hopers who are miles outside the top twenty.

rick_chasey

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't understand your point.

I'm not saying the tactics on longer stages would be particularly different.

I'm saying there'd me more pronounced differentiation between riders and greater selection once it occurs.

I'm saying extra distance will do that.

Cumulatively, the extra distance will also add to the differentiation.

And I'm saying that I think that's unlikely, as I think the extra distance would be soft-peddled into having negligible effect.
.

That's were we fundamentally disagree. Even soft pedalling the extra distance will have an effect.

Give 'em back to back 260km mountain stages and see how they do the day after in a 110km stage.

I guarantee you'll have decent racing in the final 30 mins of the first two and an outstanding one on the final one.

ddraver

Rick Chasey wrote:

Really? So how or why am I wrong?

For me, the belief that its be riders who make the race comes from looking at races over the same course, usually the classics. Every year there are good editions and bad editions. Its a common post on these boards that we need another wet Roubaix to have a good one but last year was dry as a bone and most peoples 'best race ever'

The tour was a dud this year because there was one rider who was just better than anyone else and 10 people behind him who just wanted to keep in the top 10. Hence no one bothered to attack. Ok Wout Poels is no slouch but he was made to look exceptional because no one ever tried to put him, or his leader, under any type of stress.

You can do whatever you like with the route but if the riders see no advantage in racing then it's always going to be a boring race.

deejay

These last two posts can be summed up with the modern Vuelta (but you don't like that race) where the stages used to be long and boring.
The organisers have attempted to shorten the stages and have more MTF's which is more interesting.
I can understand why the Paris- Bordeaux died a natural death because it was too long and those riders/pacemakers couldn't make a mass finish of it for the TV to show.

It is the riders that make a race and this is shown by that distance event that has no climbs in it but only the most boring flat scenery throughout the race.
Go on you must have got out of your chair and ridden these roads to know the truth.

You mention finishes at 4.30/5 pm but in the real world of Pro cycling they finish at 17.30 to 1830 cet.

rick_chasey

ddraver wrote:

You can do whatever you like with the route but if the riders see no advantage in racing then it's always going to be a boring race.

That's a weak argument.

Might as well not even look at the parcours of a race ever if you think like that.

rick_chasey

deejay wrote:

These last two posts can be summed up with the modern Vuelta (but you don't like that race) where the stages used to be long and boring.
The organisers have attempted to shorten the stages and have more MTF's which is more interesting.
I can understand why the Paris- Bordeaux died a natural death because it was too long and those riders/pacemakers couldn't make a mass finish of it for the TV to show.

It is the riders that make a race and this is shown by that distance event that has no climbs in it but only the most boring flat scenery throughout the race.
Go on you must have got out of your chair and ridden these roads to know the truth.

I'm not just talking long stages, but also short stages. I bigger extremes in stage distances would change it up more.

The vuelta works because there's a fair bit of differentiation anyway, given the best riders tend to turn up weaker, and ultimately, people like Froome care less.

Remember, the decisive stage in the Vuelta, the most exciting, was raced in under 3 hours and was 120km...

But if all stages are 120km, riders won't be tired enough to let the cream rise more easily to the top.

Sitting on a bike for 7 hours is knackering, even in the racing is dull, and that cumulative fatigue adds up and sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Friebe makes one of the few decent points on the podcast, that nowadays, with modern kit and roads, it's not that taxing to ride 200km. That reduces the difference between the riders, which allows teams to shut things down.

bobmcstuff

/\ agree with Rick on the distances.

Don't make them all 250km long but a good mix.

jimmythecuckoo

M.R.M. wrote:

a "Red Zone Channel"

That is a brilliant idea ! love that.

I don't really follow the NFL in massive detail, but I really enjoy how their Red Zone works.

ddraver

Rick Chasey wrote:

ddraver wrote:

You can do whatever you like with the route but if the riders see no advantage in racing then it's always going to be a boring race.

That's a weak argument.

Might as well not even look at the parcours of a race ever if you think like that.

I really don't get why so many people get so het up about parcours 9months before the race starts.

Does it come past my house is the only question that will answer...

deejay

Rick Chasey wrote:

deejay wrote:

These last two posts can be summed up with the modern Vuelta (but you don't like that race) where the stages used to be long and boring.
The organisers have attempted to shorten the stages and have more MTF's which is more interesting.
I can understand why the Paris- Bordeaux died a natural death because it was too long and those riders/pacemakers couldn't make a mass finish of it for the TV to show.

It is the riders that make a race and this is shown by that distance event that has no climbs in it but only the most boring flat scenery throughout the race.
Go on you must have got out of your chair and ridden these roads to know the truth.

I'm not just talking long stages, but also short stages. I bigger extremes in stage distances would change it up more.

The vuelta works because there's a fair bit of differentiation anyway, given the best riders tend to turn up weaker, and ultimately, people like Froome care less.

Remember, the decisive stage in the Vuelta, the most exciting, was raced in under 3 hours and was 120km...

But if all stages are 120km, riders won't be tired enough to let the cream rise more easily to the top.

Sitting on a bike for 7 hours is knackering, even in the racing is dull, and that cumulative fatigue adds up and sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Friebe makes one of the few decent points on the podcast, that nowadays, with modern kit and roads, it's not that taxing to ride 200km. That reduces the difference between the riders, which allows teams to shut things down.

You obviously wern't around to see those long Vuelta stages through the Plains of Spain,
i like what the Vuelta organisers have done with their modern parcours that has cut out the long hours of Tempo riding,

What Friebe says is true and I remember Touring the Alp's on gravel roads with suitable tyres that still got punctures in dangerous places.

We know the Roubaix single day race distance works and the tactics cannot be copied in a stage race because of the recovery time required, The problem is the UCI cutting the distances to some other Classic Races.

I watch regularly the Red Zone which they cover 8/9 NFl games "Live". (Christ, how do I get through a Winter without it)
The title comes from the last 20 yards of the goal line and they switch to any game that might produce a score.
In that 7 hours you don't miss any of the action. (Very Interesting)

To have such a thing in a cycle race while they ride Tempo will make it even more boring than watching a Peloton at Tempo poce.
That would just encourage more antics as they play to the camera. (Not Interesting)

deejay

ddraver wrote:

I really don't get why so many people get so het up about parcours 5 months before the race starts.

Does it come past my house is the only question that will answer...

You have to admit that the climb of this next "Ronde" up the Muur van Geraardsbergen will have about the same effect as the Het Nieuwsblad has in February. ??

Lanterne_Rogue

Long stages will only be raced at a pace high enough to do damage if the riders are forced to ride at that pace - either for strategic/tactical reasons or through outside encouragement. The obvious solution is to give the broom wagon some teeth. A couple of these chasing the peloton ought to make things more interesting...

rick_chasey

Parcours is the single biggest impact on the way a race is raced and one of the easiest to change.

To take an extreme, 21 days of pan flat racing would' be interminably dull.

iainf72

So I just listened to the podcast. It was quite good I thought, however I think they missed a bit of a trick by not talking more about how it's presented. There was good discussion about making content available more widely etc, but I think a lot can be done with the format. I really enjoy watching racing but to be fair, I sometimes wish there was a 30 minutes highlights package. Many of us got into the TdF in the 80's with this exact format. Breaks it down into something less daunting.

Also interesting they didn't touch on the minimum wage and the negative effects it could possibly be having overall. Maybe smaller teams overall would help there - Dunno. On the negatives of smaller teams, it would just result in paying off people to help IMO.

bobmcstuff

I can't listen to the podcast as it won't download on my phone. Sort it out Telegraph.

RichN95.

bobmcstuff wrote:

I can't listen to the podcast as it won't download on my phone. Sort it out Telegraph.

Just go to the podcast website. thecyclingpodcast.com and do it from there

(It's a podcast friends episode rather than a free one)

ddraver

Rick Chasey wrote:

Parcours is the single biggest impact on the way a race is raced and one of the easiest to change.

To take an extreme, 21 days of pan flat racing would' be interminably dull.

It gives an idea of what rider might win, and thus how the race is raced, but absolutely no guarantees that the race will be interesting or not. To stay with Paris Roubaix, see 2016 vs 2015. The same parcours raced in 2 very different ways with 2 very different amounts of interest...

rick_chasey

What was wrong with 2015?

You misunderstand.

It's all about getting enough differentiation.

Modern day mountain stages don't differentiate as much as they used to. Ergo, make it harder.

They've tried steeper & higher but a)they'd rather limited by geography and b) modern kit doesn't make for hugely entertaining racing aside from the odd novelty stage, where the variety is welcome.

They've tried with decent success with shorter stages -but they need to be quite short. This year's tour stages were sort of short and they didn't make the selection required.

Why not try longer GTs with longer stages? We know distance fatigues. Any of us who do an extra hour, even soft pedalling, know the effect it has.

Anyway I'm repeating myself now but that's the easiest way.

No_Ta_Doctor

But why don't MTFs differentiate like they used to?

It's not because they're easier, shorter, or equipment is better. It's because the margins in elite sport are far, far slimmer than they used to be. That's mainly because the pool of athletes is far larger, but also because equipment is more uniform and training, nutrition etc. is also close to standardised now - gains are marginal, and techniques to achieve them are propagated pretty quickly.

We also used to see long solo attacks, now we're lucky if we see a favourite attack near the peak of the penultimate climb or on the descent from it. There's just too much quality in the peloton to make that stick nowadays.

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I can't listen to the podcast as it won't download on my phone. Sort it out Telegraph.

Just go to the podcast website. thecyclingpodcast.com and do it from there

(It's a podcast friends episode rather than a free one)

I know - normally I can download it onto my phone and play it in vlc. But it's not downloading.

rick_chasey

No tA Doctor wrote:

But why don't MTFs differentiate like they used to?

It's not because they're easier, shorter, or equipment is better. It's because the margins in elite sport are far, far slimmer than they used to be. That's mainly because the pool of athletes is far larger, but also because equipment is more uniform and training, nutrition etc. is also close to standardised now - gains are marginal, and techniques to achieve them are propagated pretty quickly.

We also used to see long solo attacks, now we're lucky if we see a favourite attack near the peak of the penultimate climb or on the descent from it. There's just too much quality in the peloton to make that stick nowadays.

Exactly.

So make it more difficult.

jam1e

Every time they try and make it more difficult the riders don't race until later in the stage. The profiles which look most fearsome are generally those which have the last action.

You'd be better off making the bonifications time rather than position dependent. Win the stage by a second you double up to a 2 second bonus. Win by a minute and suddenly you're 2 minutes up.

rick_chasey

jam1e wrote:

Every time they try and make it more difficult the riders don't race until later in the stage. The profiles which look most fearsome are generally those which have the last action.

You'd be better off making the bonifications time rather than position dependent. Win the stage by a second you double up to a 2 second bonus. Win by a minute and suddenly you're 2 minutes up.

I think the shorter stages will have the action from further out.

But I see nothing wrong with 20 mins of decent racing.

Just because a stage is 7 hrs doesn't mean you need to watch all 7....

I just think the requirements for 120km stages vs 260km are different enough that you’ll get different riders gaining and losing.

It just changes it up more.

And I think some of you are thinking too short term. The cumulative effect of multiple long stages, and overall longer GTs (i.e. going above the 3,500km limit) will create for more differentiation and so, by virtue, more interesting racing.

ridgerider

We have differentiation with the current system, who is to say the same cream won't rise to the top?

Here are my thoughts...

Smaller teams, and more of them: Less opportunity for one team to dominate, more competition to win.

GT Races: how about all the riders in the GTs needing to complete a specified set of 'qualification' races, thereby all arriving at the major tours with the same amount of miles in their legs. That way, there might be clarity on the road, with riders needing the win stages to win the GT rather then the having the current miss match of only a few teams going for the GC and the rest chasing around with fresh legs for stage wins...it might also break the current stale format of start, breakaway, catch, animated stage hunters, passive GT hopefuls.

RichN95.

Coppi-Bobet-Anquetil-Merckx-Hinault-LeMond-Indurain-Armstrong-Contador-Froome

The truth is that when it comes to the Tour, whatever course they race on there's always going to be a dominant figure who will most likely win until the next one comes along. I reckon Froome has two more years at best and his replacement will win his first Tour by 2021 at the latest.