Want to draw your own route for the Tour de France? You could start with a map and a pen but what you really need is a TV remote control, if not in your hand then in your mind. More than ever the Tour de France route is being designed for television viewers, to make racing rhyme with ratings and ensuring that the opening week is as worth watching as the mountain stages. Today’s feared cobbled stage is just one example.
Leblanc canvas
Jean-Marie Leblanc ran the Tour from 1989 to 2005 and the routes often had a formulaic feel: an opening week of repeat sprint stages, a couple of long time trials and a few set piece summit finishes in between. Leblanc, despite being a nordiste who loved Paris-Roubaix, was rarely inclined to use cobbles in the Tour. It wasn’t all staid, in the 1992 Tour de France visited the Pyrenees in the opening weekend and in 1999 the Passage du Gois was wild, a road submerged by the tide and littered with seaweed. But the repeat sprints of the opening week were a staple and often the overall contenders just had to worry about their reaction times in case of a surprise spill. Leblanc was an ex-pro turned journalist and perhaps his grounding in the typewriter era meant he liked a beginning, a middle and an end to the Tour de France? In a good interview with Rouleur he sings praises for the sport’s romantic past and rants about social media.
If Leblanc had a typewriter in his brain Christian Prudhomme appears sensitive to the TV remote control. Today’s routes designed to bring in audiences and keep them gripped rather than drifting off into a siesta or channel-hopping. Certainly today’s routes are made for TV and more specifically a TV audience. But it’s too much to define it as a philosophical clash between Prudhomme and Leblanc. Prudhomme’s been bossing the race since 2007 and we’ve had several boring stages along the way: the 2012 route had a prologue and then six sprint finishes in a row. Instead it’s business with the creation of a lively route bringing in more interest and greater audiences.
The Paris-Roubaix cobbles feature today after being used last year. Before this they were used sparingly in 2010, 2004 and 1989. The repeat use is indicative of the need to spice up the first week. If that’s not enough the race was run alongside the coast yesterday, climbed the Mur de Huy, Wednesday’s Stage 6 is a sailing race along the coast and Stage 8 has the punchy uphill finish in Mûr-de-Bretagne. The opening week makes for compelling viewing; years ago you could skip a lot of stages.
Repeat Customers
As exciting as the opening week may be, borrowing from the spring classics does suggest a lack of originality, a paucity of imagination, as if even the mighty Tour has to reach into cycling’s collection of greatest hits. It’s just good business. What do the finish on the Muy de Huy, an intermediate sprint in Rotterdam, a stage start in Antwerp, another in Seraing, a celebration of Paris-Roubaix all have in common? They’re all linked to other ASO races (Flèche Wallonne, World Ports Classic, Liège-Bastogne-Liège, Paris-Roubaix) so a spotlight on this terrain might make the general public more aware of these other assets and it also allows for cross-selling, towns that host smaller races can get rewarded with the Tour’s stardust although of course they pay too.
Short and Sharp
Another TV inspired trend is the increasing number of short stages. Or is there? The average race length hasn’t changed much over the years, between 1989 and 2015 the mean distance is around 3,360km. But it’s the composition that’s changed, 5km prologues and 40km time trial stages are more rare these days which means the typical road stage has to be shorter. We see short mountain stages of under 120km and these have been compelling viewing, especially when shown from start to finish. Today’s stage might be the longest of the 2015 race but it’s the shortest ever longest stage.
Record audiences
So far so good. It’s working to with very high audiences, almost as good as 2009, the high watermark where Lance Armstrong’s comeback sucked in a wider public curious to see the show.
Conclusion
They say the riders make the race not the roads, more poetically in French it’s les organisateurs proposent, les coureurs disposent. In the Tour de France it doesn’t take much to get the riders racing so if the route can harness the geography whether coastal roads, cobbles or climbs the action and ratings will follow. This is making the opening week a test for all riders.
The risk with chasing ratings is a Wacky Races element where the public end up watching a circus show rather than a sport. But the Tour is only using roads used covered elsewhere during the year and for all the risks the big crashes in recent years have happened on banal roads. Chris Froome and Alberto Contador were simply unlucky last year rather than victims of sadistic course design, ditto those exited yesterday.
A tough opening week isn’t just good for TV whether your enjoyment as a viewer or ASO’s ownership as business. Making every stage a line from Rudyard Kipling’s “If” only makes the race a greater test: if you can cope with the cobbles, if you can ride in echelons then you might not have the Earth but you’ll win the yellow jersey. The winner of the 2015 Tour will be tested on all kinds of roads and they will stand taller on the podium in Paris for it.
What other types of stages are possible if you don’t borrow from the Spring Classics and you don’t want a sprint?
I suppose you could have something like Tro Bro which would split things up. Not sure what else there is? Although given the size of France there must still be a few unexplored areas if not types of stages.
Coming back to yesterday, most of the really big crashes seem to happen on boring straight bits of road when someone loses concentration, which is also one of the main ways crashes happen in real life, so splitting things up and making it hard could also be the safest thing to do.
It’s more the mimcry of the existing races almost to mirror ASO’s portfolio of races that stands out. It’s fine but it means future years could have a Paris-Roubaix stage, an Ardennes stage rather than just using these roads in their own right. For example there are other cobbles and the Tro Bro idea is good but those lanes are really ok for a small race.
Yes, I understand the mimicry bit as those other races don’t get anywhere near the coverage of the Tour. I was just thinking aloud as to whether it was possible at this late stage of cycling’s development to come up with a new format for a stage. You could always mix genres and add in a track section with time bonuses every ten laps as in a points race or maybe everyone could switch to MTB bikes and do a bit of mountain biking. Froome might not mind that either! An all-descent stage could be interesting although a bit short and maybe not so safe.
That was me! Edit function please!
A time trial in the Channel Tunnel would be quite interesting, if completely spectator unfriendly (yes, I watched the Jaguar ad). More windy coastal roads to reward bike handling skill. Ultimately there are only a few types of stage – sprint, mountain, rouleur, ITT and TTT – so the variation has to be on the terrain.
Unfortunately I am stuck in the UK for the duration on this years tour. If ASO are truly concerned about growing their presence, together with that of the Tour, they are going to somehow have to address the overall dismal quality of live TV presentation in the UK. Sean Kelly being a notable exception. As many others have already pointed out, some of the commentators are simply unworthy of the title.
It is not before time that some advances were made in the technology involved in TV production, but all the gizmos will be as nothing, if the quality of commentary is not greatly improved. I have no objection to information on the geography and history of the area the race is passing through. I do however expect the commentators to recognize riders, incidents and have a reasonable understanding of how and why the race is unfolding in the way it is.
1 minute every 10 kms, uphill or down seems the current limit for some. It is simply not good enough.
I’ll be happy to trade the UK broadcast for the US one. At one point yesterday, Phil, looking at a group of riders, touted the chances of one or them winning the stage. Actually, the group already had been spit out the back and was just rolling to the finish. Sometimes I get the impression Phil and Paul are just reading off a prepared script that indicates, “Promote this, talk about that…”
They undoubtedly are.
Mercifully, I can watch Eurosport – even Kirby’s jabbering is a vast improvement on P&P.
I keep reading people saying they want a blitz of info/different camera shots, etc. – e.g. Danny below – am I the only one who just wants to see the cycling? Uninterrupted.
On a sprint stage, as the trains are in full flow, I would like to be able to cut to Griepel’s go-pro for a few seconds to see him looking around to find Cav’s wheel, with a small readout in the bottom left of the screen saying he is at 57kph, 1100 watts and 160 bpm. I don’t think this would interrupt the cycling at all.
Well, Kirby quote of the day: “The French Met Service has a very reliable track record especially when hurricane in south England are concerned.”
The inserts (or whatever you call the things they show mid-race) are distracting and tedious – I don’t think any sports person has ever said anything interesting – but worst of all have to be Kirby’s ‘big shout-outs’ to those on twitter, in the style of a local radio DJ. With about 20k to go, racing between various cobbled sections, I was absolutely riveted to be told that Adam Driscoll was watching.
(And yes I have complained to Eurosport.)
Eurosport player app is streaming all the cameras live without commentary. Watching the race without commentary is very odd and frustrating though. I just wish they let the race breathe a bit more and not treat silences as “death” like radio does.
Agreed Ken,
Phil is past it, and doesn’t commentate enough cycling during the season… to e relevnt, yi the penultimate climb in etape 3 was not brand new…
Yesterday Phil told us that the weather in France was clement. Which was probably true, but the stage was taking place in Belgium.
The ASO have absolutely no responsibility for the many host broadcasters’ decisions over who they employ. That’s la-la land.
They could sort out their media presence though. I quite like the basic tracking website – picture of the route profile with indications of where the groups are, time gaps and a couple of comment every 3-5min.
However, their smart phone app is awful – which I would use to follow the races if it even only did as the website does.
Agreed. Lots of upset people out there, I suggest you complain to the broadcaster but try to make constructive suggestions, how can they make it better.
Here in the US on NBCSC the commercials kill the experience. Last night we had at least 4 minutes of commercials, followed by maybe a 30 second update, and then followed by another few minutes of commercials! I could not bear it! Yes, I will gravitate to the computer, which is the way the world is moving anyway. So long boob tube……..
ITV’s coverage is unashamedly populist -they’ve added Millar and Voight to their team this year- but to their credit they have been covering it for a while and they cover it live and in highlights form. I can appreciate it’s not for the purist but I’m not sure it’s fair to describe it as “dismal”. They are trying to pitch it at the broadest audience possible with some success I think.
As for me, ITV helped get me into the sport 6 or 7 years ago, and Imlach, Boardman, Boulting, Sherwen and Liggett are an essential part of my summer.
Feel free to submit your resume to the broadcasters for approval. I’m aware that we all have our favourites but the constant moaning about commentators is nigh on pathetic. Just turn the damn sound off and/or get Twitter. All facts you require are ready to hand if you pull your finger out. This is an information age.
Another excellent piece //INRNG – chapeau! The literary finale is a classy touch too.
the other dave agrees – +1
As do I.
Really excellent writing.
In stark contrast to this now daily whinging about commentary.
Give it a rest will you ?
We got the idea first time round. Can you just not enjoy the fantastic racing ??
I think the organisers are doing a great job with the routes. I’m sure they will be working with the TV companies to get feedback on ratings – cobbles and shorter mountain stages have probably scored well in the data.
Everyone has their own preferences on race commentary. In my opinion the real improvements can be made with insight into the inner workings of the peleton. This is what fans want to experience, e.g.
– Live race radio
– In car, directeurs sportifs cams
– Telemetry (speed / watts / heart rates) especially on TTs
– Go-pro style in-peleton footage
I would say: Everyone has their own preferences about real improvements. I prefer none of the mentioned things. And now? Btw: And please, I am not interested in anymore personal experiences with commentators I never heard of.
The broadcasters are going to have a hard time seeking out “Mr Anonymous” on INRNG to ask if he’s heard of a particular commentator. You could try learning about someone new by having a read, instead.
Big cycling fans want this but remember most cyclists don’t understand watts yet alone the wider public. It’s this broader public who form the largest part of the audience and explains why we get heli shots of castles.
What will probably come is separate apps and tracking so you can get all you want without the other viewers having their screen flashing with data like NASA mission control.
The broader public will probably understand speeds of different groups and appreciate accurate info about time gaps or the composition of groups. Though they probably won’t necessarily understand that the existing info on gaps and composition is inaccurate, and most drivers will be underwhelmed by accurate speeds.
What big cycling fans and little ones would all appreciate is live video from the bikes. I’ve no idea what is required technologically, but motorsport has been doing it well for how long? Two decades? Instead of lowering the weight limit on bikes, keep it the same or raise it, and put whatever gear is needed on every bike to get this done.
But this isn’t going to happen in my lifetime, is it? The Velon teams are claiming the bikes as their own, taking video from the bikes and posting it after the fact. One might speculate that they are doing it to gain leverage in negotiations with race organizers when the organizers finally decide to move into the 21st century. “You give us a share of the TV revenues, we let you put cameras on our bikes.” Unfortunately, that’s likely to delay its adoption until the 22nd century.
Live footage is being trialled in the Tour right now. The problem is the weight of the gear required, too noticeable on a 6.8kg bike but it’s coming.
I like heli shots of castles. I like John Harris-Bass’s “recipe of the day”. Its an experience. Its an occasion. The Tour de France should be that. If others want to be anally retentive and discuss watts and chainsets then there are other places for that other than broadcasts set up for benefit not of cycling aficionados but the general public.
Phil n’ Paul are stealing a living –
I think Prudhomme’s routes are, generally, a vast improvement – I like the inventiveness.
I think this year’s route is excellent, except for my bias against Team TTs – I find them tedious and, more objectively, I think they punish the weaker teams too much (yes, it’s a team sport, but I’d keep them as short as possible to negate this factor).
Good thing you weren’t around in the 1920s!
Although the crash yesterday was not a result of the “more interesting” route, it did have unintended consequences. It made a lot more news outlets, front page of ESPN.com and random colleagues were asking me about it as they saw it on sites like business insider etc. More exposure but at what cost. These crashes need to be diminished. A smaller peloton would help, but the riders bear some responsibility to, and the DS’s.
Crashes are unfortunately part of the race. What I find disturbing are the cameras lingering on the wounded. The audience should get a quick update on who is involved but I would prefer without the scenes of people in pain, unconscious, bleeding, etc.
It’s not that I can’t watch an episode of ER, but the broadcasters should respect the athletes (and their families) privacy by not recording these scenes.
The graph should have 1986 or 1987 as baseline, it would show the trend more clearly.
I doubt very much that the route was the cause of the crash yesterday. DSs urging riders and teams to get themselves to the front before the climb, by radio, probably has a far greater bearing on the unfortunate carnage.
The fact that no team official has mentioned the obvious role of radios, illustrates once again that ‘radios for safety’ is nothing but hot air ! Its simply about personal control.
The race radios didn’t seem much use in telling the riders the race was neutralised (quite rightly with people hitting lamp columns hard and head injuries).
Merci Fred B. You make the point much better than I. The only use of race radios is in allowing the DSs to relive their racing days, and have control over race strategy. Those that buy the safety argument should learn from observation.
Nothing to do with safety, never was and never will be. Only race radio should be able to communicate with the riders over issues concerning safety.
Folks winging about commentators and live coverage. In the UK you have 3 options Eurosport, ITV and a mute button. It’s not as if the mamils learn anything judging by the pi** poor standard of road riding in the UK.
Well, I don’t think that you can argue with the results of Mnsr Prudhomme’s courses.
Another riveting stage today and compelling viewing again.
As Carlton Kirby said “I absolutely loved that” !
Haha, Carlton for PM.
I wish the Tour would use some of the Tro Bro Leon course one year. Great fans in that region, and the course is as telegenic as can be without being sadistic.
Argh, Rob Hatch doing evening highlight voiceover/continuity stuff or whatever its called.
i only first started watching the tour in 2010 and remember being enchanted by NBC’s phil & paul, and the whole setup. to me, their voices represented familiarity and that cycling was in season. however, the past few years i’ve ventured into more niche territorities for my cycling addition, including this great blog. i stream races on Eurosport and will wake up at 5am to watch races. my fiance thinks i’m crazy. given all that though, it’s hard to listen to phil and paul now. especially as i now know no much that i catch myself correcting them on a stage by stage by basis, whether it be tactics, rider or team mixups, etc.
but i have to remember for many people tuning into cycling, especially the Tour, this is probably not their first, second, or third favorite sport to watch. indeed, their primary viewing pleasure is probably the scenery. many in the US would chaffe at mention of cycling being considered a sport in first place. with that perspective, and the recognition that i was once like the novice fan, i can see why phil and paul remain and why it’s so frustrating to the diehard fan.
for the fellow american above complaining about the NBC ads, i do two things: dvr the whole stage (make sure to add some extra time in case of overlap, too) and start watching the race about an hour / hour and half after it has officially started. with all the commericals, you’ll usually catch up to the end of race right in to time with no breaks. if you insist on watching live, i usually have a Eurosport stream open at the same time. or the NBC live extra, but again that’s only Paul commenting.
either way, i can’t complain too much given the massive undertaking just to broadcast the damn thing on a daily basis.
A great piece. Loved the insight re. how the tour narrative is moving away from classic composition towards … interactivity?
I’m lucky enough to be able to watch it (and other cycling now) in Spanish. The commentating is so much more current. On stage 3 they picked up almost immediately on the fact of why the race had been stopped. On the cobbles it was talking about the different style of bikes used for the cobbles amongst other things. It probably helps that Delgado and the other invited ex pros are from the generation which helped get me hooked on the sport.
You would think that in France at least, they wouldn’t have the Carlton Kirby/Phil Liggett problem. But no. France 2 TV, the main channel on which the Tour is broadcast has for years employed a Gallic Kirby named Thierry Adam. He’s awful. However, he’s usually counterbalanced by the Sean Kelly equivalent: in this case, the excellent Laurent Jalabert. His predecessor was Laurent Fignon, who used to correct Adam all the time whenever he said something idiotic or had simply misunderstood how the race was unfolding. Adam is so bad there’s even a French Facebook page called Pour Que Thierry Adam Ne Commente Plus de Cyclisme.