Interesting that it was OL who mentioned that. Because the way I see it in that respect your 2 tours are very similar. Meaning, the 2 things I don't really like in both your tours are the same. But then OL of course thinks the problem is where it really isn't, after the TTT, while it's clearly (I'm right, for sure) before that.
TTT:
Here Luques is more obvious with it, but it's really the same problem I have with it.
Luques: 182 km half stage. Then 42 km TTT half stage. The effect on stage 1 on the reg is there, good reg counts, but what counts more is: TEMPO. So the real big effect will be: It favors parasitism. Now I think it's good we have parasites, because if there weren't any, the game wouldn't be have as interesting, it's the different way of riding that makes the game interesting. But here.. too much. Stage 1a will just become a parasiting festival. Stage favorites? Forget the GC or forget the stage. Solution: Send a guy to the escape. No puller. And at this point of the race most guys will want to keep their GC option, even if the likely GC placing in the end is between 5-10. You never know what you can do later. For the GC you'll need 5 guys in the TTT. So: Use MAXIMUM 4 guys here. Escape. The few guys who are here JUST for the stages: Send a guy into the escape. Unlikely you have any chance to get the group. So who stays back: Newcomers. Who pulls the group? Newcomers. IMO it would have been much better to have stage 1a as stage 1 then 1b as stage 2. The stage favorites still have a difficult job, because they still want as many guys as possible fit for the next day, which isn't always easy on a stage like that. Expect rain and 25-30 degrees, not that easy conditions for helpers. Riding for a possible stage win still demands a sacrifice, less fit guys for the next day, many managers wouldn't be ready to do that sacrifice even like this I think. But in the same day? Nobody in his right mind will. Hell, even if I had a team for Tasman and he was the best sprinter in the peloton with 65+ mountain, I still wouldn't ride a meter in the peloton. Ok, the last 2 km maybe. So... sprinters ride? Are they stupid? With a passive peloton to expect it's certainly a possibilty to get a sprint. But then too easy for the 70-70 sprinters... after the last sieb put in one each, a bit later another one, and keep the sprinters away. Plus.. teams with sprinters can have GC guys too. For me the most likely scenario in this stage is still: Almost every team sends one guy in front .Some newer guys 2. They pull the group. In the back some newer guys then chase, they are assaulted by 50% of the oldtimers who are in front, those that have the best riders in front and hope for a 25+ minute advantage at the end of the stage. So... a part from the lack of reality, which is there too of course (but ok, could live with that) it's really the result in RSF which I dread.
OL: With the TTT on the 6th day, the effect will be VERY similar. Never as extreme, but for 5 days. For 5 days the "tour favorites" will expected to ride, the stage favorites will be expected to ride. The closer it gets, the more everybody else will try to send a guy into the escape, trying to get a win, without puller of course, while a few "chosen ones" will "have to" ride. And the recovery sprint stage ahead of the TTT in a way is just an insult. It says: While sprinters really have nothing to gain in this tour, only 3 sprint stages, their real role here is: Control the stage before the TTT! But again, won't affect only that stage, but all 5 who come ahead. No attacks for guys who know what they are doing for guys with TT and lowish reg. As little riding in the peloton as possible, be sure not to go under reg.
REsult of both things very similar. Luques has one extreme day of this chaos/parasitism thing, OL has 5 who are less "critical" so adds up.
Second problem with both your tours for me: IMO in both at least 1 sprint stage is missing. Both have 3. And in addition for both the sprint stages start rather late. So not only no chance for green at the end, but also no real chance to ever wear it. Here OL is the more obvious one, with Luques there are still chances in other stages, with OL not.
OL: 3 sprint stages. 5,7 and 11. All very clear. Problem of course: With only 3 sprints, and one that risks being sacrificied to energy saving, since sprinter teams, or teams with sprinters might have GC interests too.... why show up. And even if, stage 7 with 4 max risks being too steep. Lots of classics will be here... And attack is not sure to be taken back. If there were more sprints, yes, then the sprinter teams are stronger, here... 3 possible stages, this one here at risk, the one before the TTT is kind of a GC suicide... sprint stars stay at home. At least in my team... what for? To be the minder of lazy GC teams on stage 5, to have super classics running away in the slight uphill at the end of stage 7? Which leaves stage 11 as a sure sprint stage? No thanks. Since the tour has only 12 stages, so could have one more... why not add a sprint stage somewhere? Ok ,too late now of course, but with one more sprint stage it would be 4, which is ok. Then the incentive to bring the sprinter is bigger. Probably more sprinters. Stage 5 less expensive. stage 7 bigger chances to get classic attacks back.
Luques: 3 pretty clear sprint stages, 5, 10 and 13. And IMO stage1+7 are possible too. But stage one... the GC thing. See above. Stage 7: Interesting fight possibly. But.. .just not many sprinters will show up. The danger btw aren't the hill sprinters, they are the guys most punished by the new sprint system, it's the classics. Here too, one more stage, or possible stage could have already changed the balance and made stage 7 more accessible. I personnally would love to try to go for a sprint on that one. Certainly hard, the hill is a bit long, the flat maybe just a bit short, but worth a try. But with only 3 sure stages? Not sure I'd bring the necessary guys to have a chance on this stage. Flat guys basically. I get one more chance, doesn't have to be a clear stage even, stage 1 would almost do it IF stage 1b was stage 2. Then it's 3 safe ones. 2 that you can try, might win, might lose.
On these 2 problems, IMO in the end I still prefer Sulawesi to Drakensberg. The 2 possible additional sprints do it for me. Even if stage 1a is just an absolute horror IMO.
On the rest then: Drakensberg basically evens it out. Sulawesi lacks a bit the "big time gap stage" (ok, nr 1a is there for that, but..). Often then on the big time gap stages the time gap then isn't all that big either, but is possible to try. While here.. none really. But ok, still ok. But in that respect like Drakensberg a bit better, it has a few big time gap opportunities. Of course with 2 TTs the decisive factor will still be the TT, that doesn't change, roughly the same in both, ok, but Drakensberg offers more possibilities for climbers/GC guys to try to gain time, or even just for stage hunting on those stages, you can try from more different points.
So if it was a vote just between those 2.... ape wouldn't know who to vote for. And actually both are still in the running for the vote in round 1. Just that the 2 problems, TTT related and too few sprints make the ape think. If one of those 2 tours didn't have those 2 problems, or only 1 of the 2 it very likely already would have my vote.
A comment on Luques comment:
luques wrote: It's the designer that should make races that all people like... not people that should like everything a designer does... At least this is my idea of designing races
But IMO that's not what's happening. The tours that get votes get them exactly because they are not that balanced. Meaning "liked by all". I suspect many sprinter team vote for Venezuela because it has 8 sprint stages as I see it. And almost nobody else gives it their vote. So I think in the case of Venezuela it's the extremes that get the votes.
Personally don't really like Venezuala all that much, just toooo many sprints, but would ride it if it gets voted in. More about Venezuela another time.
And since I started commenting tours now, I'll comment mine too, then I'm done with that. Others later probably:
Philippines: It does nothing wrong. IMO has no big negative. But, it does nothing really right either, it has no big positives. Pretty bland fair, just little negatives, little positives. For my standard I think I managed pretty good sprint stages, IMO one of my big problems in Dec tours. Most of the time I just design them too easy, too many guaranteed sprints. Here 3 guaranteed ones and 4 possible ones.. hope they are neither too easy not too difficult, so that it ends with 3-1, 2-2, 1-3 between sprinters and classics (the poor hill sprinters really most likely not a factor anymore)not 4-0 or 0-4. Ah, and stage 7 is good, pretty steep hills. But actually wanted 3 classic stages, ended up with 2... bah. Mountain stages blah, ok, not really good, not really bad, but too backloaded really. But still ok somehow. Rideable Tour, but nothing really exciting, the biggest mistake the lack of some more action in the first 6 days. ITT, mountain stage, classic stage would have been much better there. But the classic stage after the ITT is kind of ok too, so again, just little negative. For Hubers IMO not a negative, why not, plus most of the apes dec proposals have been pretty Huber friendly anyway, nothing new.
Can't really say if I would vote for it if it wasn't my own tour (because it is I won't vote for it anyway), but probably not. Rideable. Nothing more. And from the guy who designed the greatest dec tour ever, YEMEN, I expect more
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)