I agree about the comment higher up. Every stage needs to have an impact on a major part of the race. A jersey needs to be fought over or the days racing needs to be exciting in itself not just break, catch, jersey leaders fight it out.

Genuinely not sure that could happen every day for 3 weeks, riders would be falling over with fatigue!

Part of the point of those transition days is it’s all a scripted act. Breakaway goes, everyone sits up and relaxes, chills out and the scenery becomes the star of the show.

The race-defining moment was a recovery from a mechanical. Sadly that sums it up for me. Kwiak was excellent. Bardet needs to TT, see IL pirata for past lessons. And the green jersey was won by the last man standing/sprinting.

A classic it was not.

But the threads have been great. Thanks lunge.

We want epic battles, we want toil and suffering, jubilation, heroism, intrigue and suspense

I saw all that.

It was just close, that was all. There were plenty of attacks, it’s just that no-one could get far enough away. If Froome had been able to leave Aru in his dust then he’d have won by miles and it would have been far less interesting.

They definitely need more shorter stages (120km max) and mountain top finishes. I like a good descent as much as the next person but it is getting borderline dangerous to have finishes shortly after a descent, you’re basically just testing which riders are willing to take the most risk.

Shorter stages would also mean more chance to have a women’s race before which can only be a good thing (I think it needs to start as a 5 day Tour for them, probably starting in the second week of the men’s Tour and build from there).

The 200km+ flat stages are just a snooze fest when the weather doesn’t cause drama. I get it’s a wearing out process but what’s wrong with sprinters arriving with fresher legs?

I think it’s 8 man teams next year isn’t it? 6 would be better IMO, with 8 you can still control the flat and mountains (as Sky essentially did when Geraint crashed out). With 6 then there’d be more tactics and more chances for the best laid plans to evaporate.

Ultimately though a 3 week Tour should test a rider’s all-round ability which is why Froome is still the best. Bardet may have been a better climber this Tour but until he sorts his TT out he won’t be winning the TdF (in it’s current format anyway).

Shorter stages would also mean more chance to have a women’s race before which can only be a good thing

I don’t think it’d increase the chances. On a 120km flat stage the men would be absolutely hammering it and you’d have to set the women off at 9am or something like that as the caravan two hours ahead of the men at the start.

One problem with this “women racing before the men” is I don’t think TV audiences would sit there from 10am to 5pm watching the women’s race AND the men’s race so you’d end up like the Ronde with 5 mins here and there during the normal coverage. Don’t get me wrong, it’s worth trying something like the last 3-4 days of the tour have La Course running ahead but the timing is going to be nigh on impossible to run exactly the same stage on the same day.

but it is getting borderline dangerous to have finishes shortly after a descent, you’re basically just testing which riders are willing to take the most risk.

I think descending should be part of it, so I’m the opposite to this.

If the comment is about Porte’s crash, then he stacked it because he’s not a good descender, not because he took risks per se, IMO. He was poor on the same descent (Chat) in the Dauphine too.

Just to give an idea of time differentials, despite the lauding in the press that van Vleuten went up the Iozard in a time that would land her in the top 10 of the men’s race, it depends on when you judge it from. If you just take the steeper end section then it’s a pretty big difference:

7.3km, 588m, 8%

Bardet – 22:00
van Vleuten – 27:16 (124% of Bardet’s time)

On the run in when the men were taking it easy the women were LOADS faster without a doubt as they had less distance to cover and they were firing people out the back like a machine gun.

Not to take anything from the women but the broom wagon attrition rate would be pretty brutal if the race wasn’t to start too early in the morning.

Heroes

Froome and Sky for finding a way to win on a course designed for Bardet

Froome again for riding back on after his mechanical on stage 15 despite Ag2R going full gas

Kwiatkowski for emptying himself again and again. Could he turn himself into a GC rider?

Villains

The French for their disrespect of the yellow jersey

I thought this tour was much better then is being described above, the GC wasnt decided until the TT with lots of riders in the mix. I do think the other teams need to challenge Sky more, AG2R did this somewhat on the last couple of stages.

Apart from that, I think I want the power meters to be banned from racing. I have a small doubt in that I don’t want to block progress but I think this would open things up more than most of the other ideas. I want to keep the radios as to me that adds more than it takes away.

I don’t agree with this or what Boardman said (remember they have a daily show to fill and need content to get people engaged) if you watch Froome going backwards on the airport finish climb, his power meter didn’t really help him there! It showed Froome and Sky to be human instead of cyborg winning machines which can pedal hundred of watts for 6 hours a day, hopefully teams noticed this and will smarten up to how they could win the TDF next year.

Last night was quite empty without the hour highlight show, I even miss the music from the intro…

I thought this tour was much better then is being described above

Agreed. People seem to have unrealistic expectations.

A bike race like this is a combination of factors – the parcours, the riders taking part, their team priorities, their form, the weather, accidents & illness, tactical nous…

It could have been a thrilling race if Porte hadn’t crashed out (and **** Dan Martin up in the process). As it was, it was more than adequate IMO.

Tweak one element, like making teams smaller for example, and then people will be whinging that teams aren’t supporting their GC contenders adequately because they’ve concentrated on their sprinter instead, or there are loads more pro conti teams doing doomed breakaway attempts.

Every stage needs to have an impact on a major part of the race.

I kind of get that, but part of the race is that it lasts 3 weeks and 3500km. And you don’t win the jersey if you don’t ride it all – so some days need to be attritional just to soften everyone up so that the best all rounder in the end rises to the top. Likewise – the ‘best’ sprinter is not necessarily the best sprinter (I bet Chris Hoy’s faster than them all) but they also have to drag themselves over some brutal hills as well.

you’re basically just testing which riders are willing to take the most risk

I don’t agree, some people are just faster without ‘taking risks’ because they are so much better. And that’s part of bike riding, and part of who’s the best all rounder. It’s pretty clear Froome has improved in this respect, he’s still not one of the best (although come to think of it, I don’t remember any ‘ex-MTB’er therefore must be a good descender’ comments at all this year??) but he’s competitive with his peer group now.

Tweak one element, like making teams smaller for example, and then people will be whinging that teams aren’t supporting their GC contenders adequately because they’ve concentrated on their sprinter instead, or there are loads more pro conti teams doing doomed breakaway attempts.

For sure, its an interesting balance to strike.
I’d be interested to see how 6 man teams work and invite another 4-5 wildcard teams to make the numbers back up. More riders for breaks, and less teams with the strength to control the break without help from other teams.
If your a sprinter, do you risk letting the break go and let others do the work, or do you use up your leadout pulling the break back and have to sprint solo.
If you’re a GC rider, do you need your mountain domestiques to pull on the flat and be left unable to set a controlling pace in the mountains.

But more than anything else, as I posted above, I think its about picking an interesting route, and imo, whilst the riders actually did a good job of racing what was a dull route, this years route just made for a mediocre tour.

although come to think of it, I don’t remember any ‘ex-MTB’er therefore must be a good descender’ comments at all this year??

Because the Phil Liggett / Paul Sherwen double act has thankfully gone elsewhere!

you’re basically just testing which riders are willing to take the most risk.

That’s part of being a rider, and a manager. Managers need to find a way of encouraging them to ride within their limits.

One problem with this “women racing before the men” is I don’t think TV audiences would sit there from 10am to 5pm watching the women’s race AND the men’s race so you’d end up like the Ronde with 5 mins here and there during the normal coverage.

I didn’t see this, but if the races overlap, you could easily interrupt shots of peletons and sunflowers with shots of a different peleton and different sunflowers.

Five day race for the women, racing the stage the day after before the men apart from the last day where its a time trial and both on same day would feasibly work – allowing for as discussed splitting coverage between two peltons. have women race the stage the day before the men means even those with no inteerest in womens racing would be interesetd as it would show the key bits fo the stage the day before the men raced it

Highlights for me was contador not even being close. I don’t understand why any team want to be associated with him.

Disappointments besides the crashes was that none of the rest of the teams seem to have an answer to sky. They do the same thing every year and no one seems to have a plan to counter

if you watch Froome going backwards on the airport finish climb, his power meter didn’t really help him there!

But that was short sharp climb to a finish, done at 100%. It’s the longer steadier climbs where power meters make a big difference, as they allow you to ride right on the limit for many minutes on end, without exceeding your limits.

End of the day removing power data from the screen in front of the rider won’t magically change the race, but it will make them have to be more human and ride on feel, not by the numbers.

End of the day removing power data from the screen in front of the rider won’t magically change the race, but it will make them have to be more human and ride on feel, not by the numbers.

Won’t make any difference.
When i go to my favourite local interval hill, its around a 10 min climb and I can group 4 repeats within 10s based off RPE.
If I can do it, you can be pretty certain every pro can do it too.
USPostal/Discovery didn’t need power meters to deploy exactly the same tactic SKY use to shut down attacks in the mountains.

But that was short sharp climb to a finish, done at 100%. It’s the longer steadier climbs where power meters make a big difference, as they allow you to ride right on the limit for many minutes on end, without exceeding your limits

I agree slightly, but there were many longer steadier climbs leading up to this finish, Froome must have ridden these looking at his power meter and measuring his effort to be on his limit but then still messed up the last punchy climb. The use of a power meter on that stage in my opinion didn’t help him.

True on other days it might help him, but I’d say mainly because, the other teams fail to attack with a good strategy and expose Froome/Sky/weakness.

I’m not sure that works because of the requirement for infrastructure (which is put up and taken down every day). Unless you’re not going to bother with that for the women. The way they did it this year with the women setting off first on the same day seems fine to me – I don’t think audience attention span is that big an issue, as the women are likely still getting a bigger audience than they would otherwise, and just having their race as a part of the highlights is a lot better than nothing.

I presume having the women racing at the same time as the men (with their finish a couple of hours earlier) suffers from similar issues, in that the broadcasters want to reuse the assets they’re using for the men’s race rather than lay on extra.

I write as somebody who’s enjoyed watching the women’s racing – and would have liked to see a bit more of it on the highlights – but it’s not something I’ve ever particularly gone out of my way to watch. So I’m exactly the sort of audience they should be chasing.

I presume having the women racing at the same time as the men (with their finish a couple of hours earlier) suffers from similar issues, in that the broadcasters want to reuse the assets they’re using for the men’s race rather than lay on extra.

Logistics.
On a point to point race, you end up with all the vehicles being out of position – you’d still need a separate full Commissaire / Judging Team for the women’s race and the overall event already uses a phenomenal amount of resources in terms of taking every hotel room for miles around.

I’d rather see a proper Women’s TdF, done at a different time of year and given the same resources and logistics as the current Men’s race.

Trying to run “half stages” or token efforts an hour or so earlier just turns it into a sideshow and reinforces the image that it’s a token nod towards gender equality while actually doing very little to grow and develop the sport properly.

see here, for the issues of running races too close together

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chaos-at-cascade-costs-bassett-chance-at-stage-win/

I’d rather see a proper Women’s TdF, done at a different time of year and given the same resources and logistics as the current Men’s race.

Trying to run “half stages” or token efforts an hour or so earlier just turns it into a sideshow and reinforces the image that it’s a token nod towards gender equality while actually doing very little to grow and develop the sport properly.

Totally agree a separate event would be better. The Women’s Tour looks to me to be the most-successful and best-supported women’s race – partly because it’s a standalone event.

Probably not realistic to expect a three-week GT with the same resources as the men’s event though, purely from a commercial persepctive (for teams, broadcasters & organisers).

A week-long women’s TdF at a different time of year would make a lot of sense though, maybe a week after the main event so there’s a decent gap from the Giro Rosa – but it doesn’t clash with the Vuelta.

When i go to my favourite local interval hill, its around a 10 min climb and I can group 4 repeats within 10s based off RPE.

Not the same as being 2 weeks into a grand tour and all hell breaking loose. Plus 10 seconds in the TDF would be a big diffence, potentially between being on the podium or not.

As I said above not having Power Meters isn’t going to suddenly change the race but it does make things a bit more unpredictable. And if we are to use the US Postal analogy they did mess it up at times such as in 2003 on L’Alpe d’Huez, where they hit it far too hard at the bottom and LA struggled.

Womens racing should in theory make for great TV. The lower speeds involved mean less advantage from drafting, which should open up more attacking racing.

Need to find some decent commentators though or no-one will be able to survive watching more than 10 mins no matter how good the racing is.

Yeah, but that’s running races too close together, which isn’t what I was suggesting – I was thinking more of the women’s race finishing a couple of hours before the men’s (or whatever amount is necessary to ensure that there is definitely at least an hour between the fields). I accept there are other issues with logistics which make it difficult and alluded to that – though the hotel rooms thing at least appears to be a red herring given they did manage to run La Course on the same day.

Not the same as being 2 weeks into a grand tour and all hell breaking loose.

It’s exactly the same – either you dip into the red to follow the attack and hope it slows down again, or you trust your judgement and ride a TT effort to the top. Those are the two choices any time you are riding hard up a prolonged climb.
The likes of Froome goes to Teide for weeks at a time and rides TT type efforts of different lengths up it over and over, and has been doing so for years. He’ll know exactly what 30/45/60min pace feels like, not just in terms of leg pain or respiration rate, but in subtle ways like the pressure of his feet on the pedals, and that feeling will likely be just as reliable as a power number that he may or may not be able to meet by the end of week2.

Nice idea, but it’s not going to happen. It’s even been tried in the past, but eventually failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Boucle_F%C3%A9minine_Internationale

Trying to run “half stages” or token efforts an hour or so earlier just turns it into a sideshow and reinforces the image that it’s a token nod towards gender equality while actually doing very little to grow and develop the sport properly.

Alternatively it’s a way of giving the women much greater publicity than they would get otherwise. I’m betting there are many thousands if not millions of people who watched and enjoyed the race (and would be interested in watching more women’s racing) who have never watched it before. It may not be the ultimate goal, but it’s certainly a good way of making progress in the right direction.

Heck, I mean how much discussion does women’s road racing normally get on here?

Need to find some decent commentators though or no-one will be able to survive watching more than 10 mins no matter how good the racing is.

I wanted La Course on EuroSport because Jo Rowsell-Shand and Rob Hatch were better than the ITV4 offering of Rochelle Gilmore who not only has an annoying Auusie whine, her commentary seems to consist of useless cliches like “she’s SUCH a strong rider” and “she’s a Pew-er [pure] climber”

Thanks for that, I guessed she was a strong rider cos she’s in a UCI WWT event!

Womens racing should in theory make for great TV. The lower speeds involved mean less advantage from drafting, which should open up more attacking racing.

Women’s world tour suffers a bit from lack of quality teams. Only 6 teams have won a world tour event from a total of 20 who can get automatic invites to events (last year only 6 different teams won all year). They’d need to be more selective on the invites otherwise the first half of each stage would just look like carnage. La Course this time was brutal and it doesn’t do much for the image of women’s racing if half the field looks like they’re in a totally different race.

Just ditch the reverse handicap format. Lizzie was polite, but seriously. To those that have (a time gap), even more is to be given. Handicap races are fantastic things, but this really was not great.

The TdF is a reflection of our domestic scene. I’d rather see women racing in mixed races with separate points. Seen that a few times in Surrey League and it works. Obviously that isn’t going to work at the pro level! Racing is racing.

She was right, but as stated beforehand it was an experiment. I presume the idea was that some skinny climber would get chased down by a good TT rider or a pack of rouleurs. They didn’t reckon on the best climber also being the best TT rider (and the gap being so big back to 3rd, so the pack formed too far behind) – but really they were a bit naive in that case, because it often seems to work that way in women’s racing. I’m tempted to suggest it might work better in the men’s field, but I may be romantically imagining a time when climbers couldn’t TT – I suppose Bardet is still an example, but it’s rare for the top riders not to be all rounders as is the case for the top 2 on the podium.

The question though is what do you do with a 2 stage race with a mountain stage. The Col d’Izoard climb was always going to dominate the overall results, whatever you did with the other stage.

As much as I hate the Sky’s “ride by numbers” philosophy, taking power meters off them wouldn’t make a huge amount of difference apart from making the bikes lighter.
I’m also inclined to think reducing team sizes wouldn’t really be fair either. This year, like most years at the Tour, was over run by illness and stomach upsets. It’s just part of getting a bunch of 400 or so people together in one place, then asking 200 of them to bust a gut eating gels whilst blowing out of thier arse. Bit like the first three weeks at school after the holidays.. who hasn’t caught flu or had the shits once schools back? Nah, 9 seems about right.
Shortened courses I think would work, don’t think they’d all go flat chat from the off purely because they’d all still have to measure the output for the rest of the week(s) but counter that with breaks wouldn’t last or get away long enough..
Banning radios failed, and I think should be tried again. I’m all for people not knowing where other riders are in the group, but counter that with mechanicals and emergency assistance.

Where the rider is requesting help over the radio? One way radios would work fine.

Yeah, and I know they’re followed meters behind by TV camera bikes and such. One way would work, didn’t they try this a couple of years ago in the Daphnie??

Landa’s Tour regret: ‘I had legs to drop everyone’

Well that’s pretty clear from Lands.

I think Sky are going to enjoy breaking him next year!

I think it’s naive to say some riders don’t take risks on descents – every rider does it’s just some are riding closer to their skill limit than others. Nibali and Bardet – both very good descenders have both crashed more than once in races. The thing with a mountain descent is a crash can be career (or even life) ending, you can’t see them as something you get a bit of road rash from if you get it wrong (even if that’s all that happens the majority of the time).

As I said, I like descending and think it should be a part of bike racing, what I’m objecting to is stages ending with a descent which ups the ante to a dangerous level. If there’s a mountain top finish or 30km of flat after to the finish line a ride will still push their limits to stay with a group on a descent (or stay away from a chasing pack) but it’s not the same pressure as knowing you’ll lose the stage (and potentially the Tour) if you don’t keep up.

You can’t just say it’s up to the riders & managers to manage the risk and stay safe – the point is by having a stage end shortly after a descent you’ve made the reward too high so you’re essentially forcing riders to take too big a risk.

I also don’t think some people realise just how fast pros descend, Rich Porte may be fairly poor in terms of pro descending but he’d being laughing as he shot past everyone on here on an alpine descent (I’d rate myself a pretty good descender but having watched pros descend, and even try and follow some when they’re out training – it’s a different league).

Well that’s pretty clear from Landa.

Not news though, is it? Like Froome in 2012, he could have been a winner this year. The difference is that in years past, he would have just gone against team orders and done it anyway – that was how GC succession happened in a team, it tended to be done on the road (and was always a great spectacle). Now it’s much more disciplined and done behind closed doors. Wait your turn or go elsewhere – he’s chosen the latter course, and good luck to him.

Not convinced he could have outridden Froome by week 3.

Remember Froome let him go up the road a couple of times. If he hadn’t been on Sky, then Sky would not have given him that leeway.