"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - A TDF TT I'd Like to See

Distance of at least 80 miles, course laid out with a mixture of flats and tough climbing. All riders required to use their regular mass-start road bikes and no aero equipment.

The idea is to simulate a long solo break. That's the reason for no aero equipment. 80 miles gives you enough distance that you can work in an interesting mix of climbing and flats. It also is long enough that riders have to carefully manage their power output. Can't just run at LT until you drop.

If you got the mix of climbing and flats right, neither the pure climbers nor the TT specialists would dominate the stage, and it would give the GC men a chance to strut their stuff. In short, it would be a real "race of truth".

The GC men already dominate the TTs. Off the top of my head, Hinault, Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong, Ullrich, Landis, and in 2007 Leipheimer and Evans, all dominated TdF TTs and were GC men.

50 more miles and no areo equipment will only make it even more boring to watch and the time gaps even more insurmountable for climbers in the GC picture.

where are you going to find 40 miles uphill to keep the climbers in the picture?

the TDF tt stages have to be looked at the context of the entire race.

an 80 mile TT would make EVERY other stage irrelevant

Yeah finally a TT where riders have to carefully manage their power output!!

Oh wait, you have no idea what you are talking about.

As others have said...this is pointless. The rest of the race would be damn near inconsequential for anyone other than the top 3 contenders.

I hate to say this, but do you actually race bikes or watch bicycle racing?

that is what one-day classics are for, not the TDF

The GC men already dominate the TTs. Off the top of my head, Hinault, Lemond, Indurain, Armstrong, Ullrich, Landis, and in 2007 Leipheimer and Evans, all dominated TdF TTs and were GC men.And lots of GC men aren't strong in "normal" (short and flat) time trials. Valverde and Pereiro immediately come to mind. A longer, hillier course would shake out most of the TT specialists, leaving only guys who were true GC contenders.

It would be a great opportunity for any rider wanting to prove he has the legs and lungs to be a team leader. Anybody finishing top ten in a stage like this would have to look good to a team looking for a GC leader or co-leader.

The longer distance, and mixed terrain give much more opportunity for strategy than the typical short, flat TT course. And finally, forcing all riders to occasionally ride what amounts to a long solo break might encourage top riders to do it more often.

heh.

that would be a tight way to ruin the race.

So much for a stage race.

50 more miles and no areo equipment will only make it even more boring to watch and the time gaps even more insurmountable for climbers in the GC picture.If you balance the course with enough climbing, the climbers will do okay. The typical short, flat TT course is as bad for climbers as it gets. I don't see how adding a bunch of categorized climbs are going to hurt them. And ditching the aero equipment makes it about who can ride, not who spent more time in the wind tunnel.

Where are you going to find 40 miles uphill to keep the climbers in the picture?
They've done all-mountain time trials before. It shouldn't be too hard to find 20-30 miles of mostly flat going into 30-40 miles of cat 3 and 4, followed by 10-20 miles with a cat 1 or 2.


the TDF tt stages have to be looked at the context of the entire race.

an 80 mile TT would make EVERY other stage irrelevantIf one rider managed to pick up 5-10 min on the stage (which I think would be unlikely), the rest of the race would be one breakaway by his competitors after another. His team wouldn't get much help chasing them down, either. The Tour would stop being a friggin' chess game and once again be about who's the fastest mother in the peleton.

If one rider managed to pick up 5-10 min on the stage (which I think would be unlikely), the rest of the race would be one breakaway by his competitors after another. His team wouldn't get much help chasing them down, either. The Tour would stop being a friggin' chess game and once again be about who's the fastest mother in the peleton.

In a TT that long I am SURE you would have time gaps of 5-10 minutes easily. And no, it would not be one breakaway of competitors after another, because, as always, the leader's team would control the race. If a "competitor" decided to go, they would have the option of letting him hang out to dry, or sending a domestique to chase him down. It would be suicide for a "contender" to try to make up a 5-10 minute time gap (Yeah, yeah, the Floyd thing was an exception), because other "contenders" wouldn't let it happen. In the end, the breakaway would be nullified as usual.

In addition, the "Fastest mother in the peleton?" Define fast. Sprinters take the flat stages. Climbers take the mountain stages, and TTists take the TTs. When it comes down to it, the fastest time wins. Sounds like the "fastest mother" already does win.

Very bad idea. Instead, take your idea and make it a one day TT of it's own. In a grand tour it simply has no place.

They haven't had TT's that long since the early 60's IIRC.

In 1985 and 1987 the Tour had TT's of around 75km. Hinault destroyed the field in 85 (Roche 2nd at 2.5minutes) and Roche won well in 87 (beat Mottet by nearly a minute).

Jens Voigt would win every time. Not that that's a bad thing....

...The idea is to simulate a long solo break... .

If you really want to make this capability relevant, then take out the TT's altogether! Now that would be an interesting TDF strategically.

If you really want to make this capability relevant, then take out the TT's altogether! Now that would be an interesting TDF strategically.

You are right, no tt's would guarantee GC men on solo breaks in the flat stages. Well i guess they would have to try then get reeled back in by the teams.

In a TT that long I am SURE you would have time gaps of 5-10 minutes easily. And no, it would not be one breakaway of competitors after another, because, as always, the leader's team would control the race. If a "competitor" decided to go, they would have the option of letting him hang out to dry, or sending a domestique to chase him down. It would be suicide for a "contender" to try to make up a 5-10 minute time gap (Yeah, yeah, the Floyd thing was an exception), because other "contenders" wouldn't let it happen. In the end, the breakaway would be nullified as usual.

In addition, the "Fastest mother in the peleton?" Define fast. Sprinters take the flat stages. Climbers take the mountain stages, and TTists take the TTs. When it comes down to it, the fastest time wins. Sounds like the "fastest mother" already does win.

Very bad idea. Instead, take your idea and make it a one day TT of it's own. In a grand tour it simply has no place.If the leader's team could always "control the race", the guy who won the prologue would win the GC in Paris. If a 10-15 man break went with 4-5 of the leaders competitors, their teams wouldn't chase, and any domestique that goes with the break would be a null factor. If he tries to slow the break down, just drop his @$$. Those teams could make a deal with the sprinters' teams - send your guys with us, we'll pull them to the finish, they can sprint head to head for the stage win and the points, we don't care about that. We just want to make time for our guys against the GC. Work with us, we'll work with you. Screw us and you'd better hope you never, ever, need our help.

I think it would be a good one day event, too. But the reason for doing it in a stage race is that it would force more aggressive riding by the contenders. The grand tours have become too much like a grand master level chess game, competitors just trying to pick up tiny advantages in each stage - 5 seconds here, 15 seconds there. I miss the days when guys like Coppi and Merckx would ride away from the peloton just 'cause they were feeling good that day and saw a chance to put the race away. Landis' ride to Morzine, even though it was DQed, showed us a kind of drama in the TdF that we hadn't seen in years.

You are right, no tt's would guarantee GC men on solo breaks in the flat stages. Well i guess they would have to try then get reeled back in by the teams.

Take away the Radio's.

I'd like to have the TTT back and a mountain time trial.

Take away the Radio's.

Can you imagine? (and yes, I know it is a recent development, so most of us CAN imagine, but I mean, really, think of the poor sprinters' teams)

Take away the Radio's.

And it would make absolutely no difference.

You are right, no tt's would guarantee GC men on solo breaks in the flat stages. Well i guess they would have to try then get reeled back in by the teams.One way to cut down on that would be to ban team radio nets. The DSs know exactly how far ahead the break is, how fast it's going, how fast the peleton is going, AND they can instantly communicate the results of their calculations to their teams. If they had to send messages up via domestique, it would at least slow their communications down and make it harder for them to run down the break exactly 8.2 k (or whatever distance they chose) from the finish.

Can you imagine? (and yes, I know it is a recent development, so most of us CAN imagine, but I mean, really, think of the poor sprinters' teams)**** the sprinters' teams. Damn wheelsuckers. :p

And it would make absolutely no difference.

doubtful.

without radio the only info the riders get is that guy on the back of the motorcycle running back and forth doing time splits, and whatever the domestique was told while picking up bottles. Thats much less information, so the riders would have to use their gut more.

The impact on strategy is not necessarily obvious, but certainly there.

doubtful.

without radio the only info the riders get is that guy on the back of the motorcycle running back and forth doing time splits, and whatever the domestique was told while picking up bottles. Thats much less information, so the riders would have to use their gut more.

Except the riders are smart enough to know when the critical moves are being made and can easily send someone back to the car to talk it over, just like they can keep sending someone back to see how to adjust as things play out. So while communication between DS and riders might be slowed down somewhat, the important information will still be communicated. Also, contrary to what some believe, these riders are professionals and can calculate how to time a catch. Watching a race in real time, it's easy to see just how much time there is to adjust to situations. Though I'm not talking about the instantaneous decisions like jumping on an attack for which the radios don't help even now.

I believe they had a TT in the Tour of Dubai in which they had to use their normal kit...

If memory serves...

But I think it was quite flat.

Except the riders are smart enough to know when the critical moves are being made

No they are not. It is a skill. It allows you (if you wanted) to put a whole bunch of 20somethings on a team and control them from the car. Radios end careers earlier IMO i.e the value of the 'wily old cat' is diminished!



and can easily send someone back to the car to talk it over, just like they can keep sending someone back to see how to adjust as things play out. So while communication between DS and riders might be slowed down somewhat, the important information will still be communicated.

Yes but there is a physical and strategic 'cost' to acquiring the information if you take away the ear piece. Right now there is virtually none. If you want accurate information then you have to 'pay' for it by returning a chess piece to the support car and then returning the rider back to the bunch. This may well be seen a small nuance to some but its all part of the strategic element of the sport which is diminished at present by the ear piece.



Also, contrary to what some believe, these riders are professionals and can calculate how to time a catch.

And a tennis player can nail a big serve all day long at training but can he respond late in a 5th set when he is down 0-40? That is part of the reason why we watch. How does the individual respond under mental fatigue? In tennis they intrinsically understand allowing the athlete to engage a coach or advisor is a 'mental refuge'. It takes away from the purity of contest.

Spectators are fascinated by epic failures almost as much as epic victories. When building the framework of your sport you need to keep this very much at the forefront of your mind.

When our GC riders are 19 days into a GT and on a 200km stage with 4 Cat1 climbs and they are on their limit can they maintain absolute vigilance on all their rivals? Can they operate mentally under immense physical stress? Do they know their bodies inside out?

They need to take away both the ear piece and the power data from all riders in grand tours during competition.

I have tried to convince the 'big cheeses' around here (Classic1 etal) about this
and they are slowly giving ground. Its a hard slog drumming logic into a bunch of cycling geriatrics...:p

Except the riders are smart enough to know when the critical moves are being made and can easily send someone back to the car to talk it over, just like they can keep sending someone back to see how to adjust as things play out. So while communication between DS and riders might be slowed down somewhat, the important information will still be communicated. Also, contrary to what some believe, these riders are professionals and can calculate how to time a catch. Watching a race in real time, it's easy to see just how much time there is to adjust to situations. Though I'm not talking about the instantaneous decisions like jumping on an attack for which the radios don't help even now.

Really have to disagree. Big difference between constant instantaneous feedback and calculation of gaps and occasional snapshots. You think so many breaks are caught with under 2K to go just because the riders are professionals?? No! Many teams have a vested interest in catching the break w/o enough time left for a counter. These are often the Teams chasing (setting up sprinters). Leave that up to just rider judgement and perhaps that break is caught at 5K and their is a regrouping or counter. Or perhaps they misjudge and don't catch at all. How often do you see either happen any more?

Leave that up to just rider judgement and perhaps that break is caught at 5K and their is a regrouping or counter. Or perhaps they misjudge and don't catch at all. How often do you see either happen any more?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I have tried to convince the 'big cheeses' around here (Classic1 etal) about this and they are slowly giving ground. Its a hard slog drumming logic into a bunch of cycling geriatrics...:pSome of us "cycling geriatrics" still remember the "good old days", when guys like Merckx would ride the wheels off the peloton - and would like to bring them back. :p

Seriously, today's contenders spend most of the race wheelsucking and hoping the other guys will crack. The only thing that will get a GC contender out on a breakaway nowadays is desperation. So let's create a little desperation by creating a stage where:

All the contenders have to give their maximum effort or possibly lose the race.
The duration is long enough and the terrain varied enough that the riders can't just dial it up to their CP(race duration) and avoid crashing.
The duration is long enough that the riders have to watch out for fatigue-induced mistakes.
Is demanding enough that if a rider does cinch the race with a win, he's earned it.
Should be early enough in the tour that riders that lost time on the stage have some opportunities to make up the lost time.

The time trial is sometimes called "the race of truth". However, modern TT practices, such as short, flat courses and absurd aero equipment, have diluted that truth. Lose the aero crap, put in enough hills to shake out the fat boys, make it long enough that you have to pick your attacks carefully, and you can restore the TT to its proper place in the grand scheme of cycling - the best way of picking the best rider.

And freewheels. It used to be to win a 200 mile stage, you had to pedal 200 miles. Now riders pedal less than half the distance on some stages.

not as fat - keep selling, eventually someone will buy your 80 mile TT over the tourmalet.:rolleyes:

However, modern TT practices, such as short, flat courses and absurd aero equipment, have diluted that truth.

This dilutes the truth how? It seems to me that pretty much everyone in the tour rides (roughly) the same equipment and therefore I don't see how a TT bike, a pointy helmet or disc wheels are "diluting the truth."

Please explain?

This dilutes the truth how? It seems to me that pretty much everyone in the tour rides (roughly) the same equipment and therefore I don't see how a TT bike, a pointy helmet or disc wheels are "diluting the truth."

In fact, alllowing equipment that lets each rider optimize his power to drag ratio levels the playing field. Artificial constraints on position or equipment benefits those whose ratio is better under those contraints at the expense of the riders who might perform better under a different set of rules. For example, now a rider who has a hump in his back can choose a helmet that works well when the hump is there; while one with a flat back, can use a helmet better suited for that configuration. Forcing riders to choose from a limited range of helmet shapes will unfairly penalize one or the other of these riders.

And lots of GC men aren't strong in "normal" (short and flat) time trials. Valverde and Pereiro immediately come to mind. A longer, hillier course would shake out most of the TT specialists, leaving only guys who were true GC contenders.

It would be a great opportunity for any rider wanting to prove he has the legs and lungs to be a team leader. Anybody finishing top ten in a stage like this would have to look good to a team looking for a GC leader or co-leader.

The longer distance, and mixed terrain give much more opportunity for strategy than the typical short, flat TT course. And finally, forcing all riders to occasionally ride what amounts to a long solo break might encourage top riders to do it more often.

Actually it would be a great opportunity for a rider who is not already considered a GC contender to show that he is not a team player and lose his contract for next year.

In fact, alllowing equipment that lets each rider optimize his power to drag ratio levels the playing field. Artificial constraints on position or equipment benefits those whose ratio is better under those contraints at the expense of the riders who might perform better under a different set of rules. For example, now a rider who has a hump in his back can choose a helmet that works well when the hump is there; while one with a flat back, can use a helmet better suited for that configuration. Forcing riders to choose from a limited range of helmet shapes will unfairly penalize one or the other of these riders.According to that philosophy, why not allow recumbent low-racers with full fairings? :rolleyes: Bike racing is supposed to be about who's the best rider, not who has the biggest budget for wind tunnel testing.

Actually it would be a great opportunity for a rider who is not already considered a GC contender to show that he is not a team player and lose his contract for next year.Why would a team fire a rider for doing well in a stage? Most TdF stages aren't won by GC contenders. If the rider didn't actually beat his team leader, he hasn't hurt the team. And if he did beat his team leader, he wouldn't have much trouble finding a team leader slot. He might end up replacing the team leader. Lemond replaced Hinault.

Bike racing is supposed to be about who's the best rider, ...

I have no idea what that means.

I have tried to convince the 'big cheeses' around here (Classic1 etal) about this
and they are slowly giving ground. Its a hard slog drumming logic into a bunch of cycling geriatrics...:p

You blockhead. :p I've always said they should get rid of the earpieces. They ruin racing. It was more exciting in the 80's without them and long breakaways were more often successful pre-earpieces.

It was more exciting in the 80's without them and long breakaways were more often successful pre-earpieces.

Earpieces had nothing to do with that. It was all due to introduction of Powerbars.

You blockhead. :p I've always said they should get rid of the earpieces. They ruin racing. It was more exciting in the 80's without them and long breakaways were more often successful pre-earpieces.

Well that makes three of us. You, me and Rochie.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/photos/features/ventoux/ventoux-roche.jpg

This dilutes the truth how? It seems to me that pretty much everyone in the tour rides (roughly) the same equipment and therefore I don't see how a TT bike, a pointy helmet or disc wheels are "diluting the truth."

Please explain?They dilute the truth - who's the best rider, by making it a competition of technology - who has the biggest budget for wind tunnel testing. Furthermore, TT bikes are optimized for flat, short courses. Would you want to ride a TT bike 80 miles on hilly roads working up to a cat 1 or 2 climb? And you might have to do a couple of descents, too. Requiring an honest road bike might be doing the riders a favor.

Edit:
Upon further reflection, it occurred to me that as TT bikes became more specialized, the courses they were ridden on have also became more specialized. TT bikes are pi$$-poor climbing bikes, so TT courses usually avoid hills like the plague. Cat 4 climbs are the exception, not the rule on TT courses, and I can't remember any Cat 3 on a non-mountain TdF TT. At least not since Lemond started that aero crap.

They dilute the truth - who's the best rider, by making it a competition of technology - who has the biggest budget for wind tunnel testing. Furthermore, TT bikes are optimized for flat, short courses. Would you want to ride a TT bike 80 miles on hilly roads working up to a cat 1 or 2 climb? And you might have to do a couple of descents, too. Requiring an honest road bike might be doing the riders a favor.

Pure entertainment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzeknUUhRoE) (youtube)

not as fat - keep selling, eventually someone will buy your 80 mile TT over the tourmalet.:rolleyes:Doesn't have to go over the Tourmalet. A mere cat 1 or 2 would suffice to shake out the fat boys who can't climb. :p Heck, 100k with 3 or 4 cat 3s back to back would be an improvement over current TT practice. :rolleyes:

I have no idea what that means.I define it as the guy who can climb with the best climbers, descend with the best descenders, and time trial with the best time trialists. I'm not as impressed by sprinting ability, because the top sprinters usually aren't good for anything else. If they didn't have the peloton to drag their butts to the finish line, they'd never get close enough to the lead for their sprinting ability to matter.

The GC usually ends up with someone like this, but I'd like to see a stage that plays more directly to the GC contenders' strengths. While it's true that top GC men generally do well in the time trials, most time trials don't showcase their climbing ability.

I define it as the guy who can climb with the best climbers, descend with the best descenders, and time trial with the best time trialists.

I define it as the one who can eat the most eggs (50 minimum). At least mine doesn't rely on subjective judgements so we have to throw out the score from the East German judge. I don't know how to define "with"

I define it as the one who can eat the most eggs (50 minimum). At least mine doesn't rely on subjective judgements so we have to throw out the score from the East German judge. I don't know how to define "with":rolleyes: He doesn't get dropped by the specialists when he's riding in their area of specialty, and he can drop them like a bad habit anywhere else.

If you need an actual example from history to get it, consider Armstrong v Pantani at Ventoux in 2000. Armstrong finished about 1 1/2 bike lengths behind Pantani, and could beat him like a stepchild in a time trial.

If you need an actual example from history to get it, consider Armstrong v Pantani at Ventoux in 2000. Armstrong finished about 1 1/2 bike lengths behind Pantani, and could beat him like a stepchild in a time trial.

That's a kind of perverse example, but be that as it may, what if the gap had been 3 1/2 bike lengths? 5 1/2? 1/2 mile? How big a gap would Pantani have had to open to be the "best" given Armstrong's advantage in the TT?

Upon further reflection, it occurred to me that as TT bikes became more specialized, the courses they were ridden on have also became more specialized.

So you are somehow implying that TT bike makers have paid off the tour organizers? How else would you explain a bike dictating course design.

IF ANYTHING, its the other way around. a specific course is laid out and then a specific bike is developed to give the rider the best advantage over that course. Remember that the course is announced about 9 months in advance. Saying "oh they picked the perfect route for my favorite bike" and then not adjusting anything is not how to win a race. That is what you are describing.

I also don't think it is fair to say aero equipment "diluted" TT's. Regardless of what they are riding on, a long flat TT will play to the advantage of a big roller who can ride hunched over the whole time. An uphill TT will alway play to the advantage of a tiny climber who can sustain a good power/weight ratio.

The equipment does not change those fundamental truths. Also consider that about 75% (or more) of the drag force during a TT is produced solely by the rider's body and position. The bike is a very small part of the picture, but it's where pro tour teams dump the money because, well you can only shrink the rider so much.

Honestly, you could say that modern TT equipment makes it MORE about the rider because the bike is becoming a smaller fraction of the total drag compared to body+position.

some guys are just naturally good too. Dave Z is said never to have set foot in a wind tunnel, and we all know how he can ride a TT.

That's a kind of perverse example, but be that as it may, what if the gap had been 3 1/2 bike lengths? 5 1/2? 1/2 mile? How big a gap would Pantani have had to open to be the "best" given Armstrong's advantage in the TT?My point was that Armstrong was the best, not Pantani. :rolleyes: In those days, Pantani was generally considered to be the world's best climber. Armstrong finished one of the toughest climbs (arguably the toughest) in all of cycling within seconds of Pantani's time. In the one time trial they both rode that year, the 16.5 km Stage 1, Armstrong beat Pantani by just over two minutes (yeah, two minutes in 16.5k). Pantani abandoned before the final time trial, but Armstrong would have probably put 9-10 minutes into Pantani, had he raced.

To answer your question as to what it would take to reverse Pantani and Armstrong's relative positions, I would have expected their relative performances to be reversed in their specialties. I would have expected Pantani to hold his losses in the time trials to no more than 1 min. in a short TT and 2 min in a long one. I would have expected him to consistently gain 1-2 min. on mountain stages.

The most Pantani ganed on Armstrong on any mountain stage that year was 50 seconds.