A different TdF?

ugo.santalucia

Here's my TdF bugbears

1) Time gaps are becoming so ridiculously small that it's not worth taking any risk anymore for GC men... it's easier to lose 5 minutes by overcooking it, than to gain 10 seconds, so nobody attacks. Also, can you really say someone deserved to win the TdF because he finished 30 seconds ahead over 3600 km? It seems ridiculous

2) The green jersey competition means there are too many sprinters and too many flat stages, which in turns means too many crashes and not enough GC action

Here's my solution:

Get rid of the green jersey and keep yellow, pois and white. All of them on points: there are 4 types of stages: flat, rolling, mountain stages and TTs. Assign Respectively 10, 20, 30 and 30 points to the winner for the yellow and white, 9, 18, 27, 27 to the second and so on, basically the first 10 of every stage go on points. Pois jersey stays as it is.
This way, someone like Sagan can win the TdF if he plays his cards smart and each team will have a credible GC contenders, using a bunch of different strategies.
Flat stages are not worth much and will be contested among the few sprinters left in the competition and maybe a bunch of fast finishers.

Most importantly, all stages matter for the GC in a way or another, rather than the 7-8 we have now

Thoughts?

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Thoughts?

No.

To your points:

1) Surely narrow margins mean that adventure can be rewarded. Thirty seconds is possible to gain on a stage, over a minute needs the other party to fail

2) There are lots of flat stages because a lot of France is flat. And they like to cover as much of France as they can. Despite 8-10 teams having a genuine sprinter, there has only been one crash in the last kilometre (Sagan/Cav). The three second rule looks to have helped there.

fat daddy

who wins in the case of 4 riders ending up with the same number of points

ugo.santalucia

fat daddy wrote:

who wins in the case of 4 riders ending up with the same number of points

Highest number of wins or stage podiums?

kingstongraham

Getting rid of the green jersey won't mean fewer sprinters. Teams still want to win stages.

rick_chasey

6 man teams.

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Thoughts?

No.

To your points:

1) Surely narrow margins mean that adventure can be rewarded. Thirty seconds is possible to gain on a stage, over a minute needs the other party to fail

2) There are lots of flat stages because a lot of France is flat. And they like to cover as much of France as they can. Despite 8-10 teams having a genuine sprinter, there has only been one crash in the last kilometre (Sagan/Cav). The three second rule looks to have helped there.

To your points

1) What I am trying to say is that the reward does not pay off for the huge risk... you might gain 10 seconds, but you might just as well end your GC aspirations on the same stage... in a point system, it doesn't matter if you lose 5 minutes... obviously stages need to be designed cleverly, but that is always the case

2) No part of France is completely flat, maybe the Camargue, but they seem to avoid hills like a pest... how can you have a flat run into Liege (Belgium, I know) ?

ugo.santalucia

KingstonGraham wrote:

Getting rid of the green jersey won't mean fewer sprinters. Teams still want to win stages.

But they would rather support a GC man, it would get rid of teams designed around Kittel, Cipollini, Cavendish etc...

ugo.santalucia

Rick Chasey wrote:

6 man teams.

Sure, but that's marginal gains, isn't it? I'm for a radical change, the formula is stale

rick_chasey

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

6 man teams.

Sure, but that's marginal gains, isn't it? I'm for a radical change, the formula is stale

That'd be radical I reckon.

professeur

Rick Chasey wrote:

6 man teams.

More teams of 6 or a smaller race?

kingstongraham

ugo.santalucia wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Getting rid of the green jersey won't mean fewer sprinters. Teams still want to win stages.

But they would rather support a GC man, it would get rid of teams designed around Kittel, Cipollini, Cavendish etc...

I disagree - I don't think Kittel came in to this race with ambitions for the green - he wanted to win stages. If the green jersey comes along as well, then all well and good. If he wins 4 stages, but Matthews wins green, I don't think he'll consider it a failure.

Lanterne_Rogue

Points were used in the early days and dropped partly because it tended to reduce the amount of racing. These days it would probably just neutralise racing until a final sprint.

rick_chasey

professeur wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

6 man teams.

More teams of 6 or a smaller race?

Smaller race. Less filler more killer.

ugo.santalucia

OK,

if points don't work, then how about a "day off"? A rider is allowed to have one stage (not a TT) where his time gap is waived... would that allure some to take greater risks? I'm just trying to think outside the box, as every mountain stage is a replica of the previous

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

To your points

1) What I am trying to say is that the reward does not pay off for the huge risk... you might gain 10 seconds, but you might just as well end your GC aspirations on the same stage... in a point system, it doesn't matter if you lose 5 minutes... obviously stages need to be designed cleverly, but that is always the case

But what is the point of attacking in you system? You risk 20-30 points to gain three. Just wait for the sprint instead. That's the way to maximise points. Your system is just a wheel suckers charter.

darkhairedlord

Substitutes, say if a rider is injured, someone else can come in.
They don't carry their time or points over and the rider subbed cannot rejoin.

ugo.santalucia

RichN95 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

To your points

1) What I am trying to say is that the reward does not pay off for the huge risk... you might gain 10 seconds, but you might just as well end your GC aspirations on the same stage... in a point system, it doesn't matter if you lose 5 minutes... obviously stages need to be designed cleverly, but that is always the case

But what is the point of attacking in you system? You risk 20-30 points to gain three. Just wait for the sprint instead. That's the way to maximise points. Your system is just a wheel suckers charter.

Possibly... I was thinking riders who don't have a strong sprint might attack early, maybe teaming up with others to take away points to the other GC contenders... basically a more diverse scenario, where tactics play a role.

At the moment they all do a great deal of talking about tactics, but I can't really see much in the way of clever riding once on the road

ugo.santalucia

darkhairedlord wrote:

They don't carry their time or points over....

You mean they do...

professeur

Rick Chasey wrote:

professeur wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

6 man teams.

More teams of 6 or a smaller race?

Smaller race. Less filler more killer.

Yeah, I could go with that. Be nice to see the Vuelta experiment with stuff like this - can't see the TdF mucking about, impacting the preceived prestige of their race (vs the other GTs).

tailwindhome

I've found the best improvement is to go on holiday for week one.
Time asking the wife if her wine needs a top up to coincide with the last 10 minutes of each stage.
Check out the cover of Gazzetta Dello Sport the next morning for a continental vibe

Been an excellent tour.

iainf72

The Tour de France is a huge event with huge importance to media and cycling world.

That drives certain behaviours and medalling with the race formula won't change that. Cycling Podcast talked about making it only the yellow jersey, and no rewards for anything but winning. That's how you change it but it's never going to happen

m.r.m.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

They don't carry their time or points over....

You mean they do...

They can't. That would mean a team like Sky would re-sign Cav, run him the first week of the Tour and then sub him out for Froome. Would increase the disparity between small budget teams and large ones even more.

Ben6899

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Also, can you really say someone deserved to win the TdF because he finished 30 seconds ahead over 3600 km? It seems ridiculous

We should see what Greg Lemond reckons...

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

6 man teams.

QS then have to choose between supporting Kittel and taking Martin.

I don't think there is any way around teams wanting to win stages.

I also don't think there's a lot wrong with the race this year except the weather on stages 1 and 2.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Maybe a mix of...

Rank the riders in each team, then assign them to groups, so group 1 is comprised of the the top riders of each team.
Send groups out every ~10 minutes, starting with group 1.
Record stage race time for each rider.
Riders then assigned to group for next stage according to their general classification time rank, one team rider per group.

Rank teams before event in predicted order.
Send teams out as a group every ~10mins, starting with best ranked group.
Stage time for each rider recorded.
Rank of team changes according to general classification of overall team time (although what to do about retirements?)

---

I can't help but think that modern technology (radio, support cars etc.) is robbing the public of more sporting entertainment.

Maybe the time to complete the tour should be scrapped entirely and base things solely on a rider's finishing position in each stage relative to others, like an F1 meeting etc.

ugo.santalucia

Ben6899 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Also, can you really say someone deserved to win the TdF because he finished 30 seconds ahead over 3600 km? It seems ridiculous

We should see what Greg Lemond reckons...

We can't ask the counterpart what HE reckons...

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

That drives certain behaviours and medalling with the race formula won't change that. Cycling Podcast talked about making it only the yellow jersey, and no rewards for anything but winning. That's how you change it but it's never going to happen

The problem with the Cycling Podcast suggestion, and others is that they view cycling purely as a sporting event and not as the rider's livelihood. Yesterday they and others were criticising Astana for working for Froome as though they are playing PCM. And imagined tactics always work.
But in reality Aru is looking for his next contract, hasn't had a big result for a while and has Lopez coming up behind him. He probably has a big mortgage and zero qualifications beyond cycling and Astana will be reviewing their future in the sport. At 27, second behind Froome is a great result - one that guarantees his future.

ugo.santalucia

Maybe I just have rosy memories of how the TdF was, when in fact it was just as boring (1998 aside)... a bit like how summers used to be and they are no longer :-)

Ben6899

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Also, can you really say someone deserved to win the TdF because he finished 30 seconds ahead over 3600 km? It seems ridiculous

We should see what Greg Lemond reckons...

We can't ask the counterpart what HE reckons...

Unfortunately not.

Plenty written about - he was understandably crestfallen.

mattsaw

Ban powermeters, team radio and drug tests.

That'll take us back to pre-2005