Shorter Grand Tours: UCI considers shortening the Giro and the Vuelta to 16 days

The Tour de France is set to remain as it is: three weeks, 21 stages, the undisputed centre of the cycling world. For the Giro d’Italia and the Vuelta a España, however, the future could look very different.

As part of its wide-ranging consultation on the future of professional cycling, the UCI is examining new race formats, including, specifically, shortened Grand Tours. In its final report, the world governing body mentions standardised shorter stage races and even ‘three-weekend Grand Tour formats’ – that is, Grand Tours spanning three weekends, which would be significantly shorter than today’s three-week stage races. The aim is to reduce overlaps and make it easier for riders to compete in multiple Grand Tours within a single season. This marks the first time an official document has been tabled that does not rule out a fundamental reorganisation of the major stage races.

The problem is the UCI calendar

This debate is nothing new. What is new, however, is that it is now coming from within the system itself. During the consultation, the racing calendar was by far the most discussed topic. Teams, riders and organisers called for greater clarity, fewer clashes and a better geographical structure to the season. At the same time, the duration of certain races, including some Grand Tours, was called into question on several occasions.

From the UCI’s perspective, there is an obvious problem here: an ever-increasing number of race days is coming up against a limited number of professional teams and top riders. At the same time, the international calendar is expanding. The result is an increasingly packed schedule. Anyone who rides the Giro today, then competes in the Tour and later wants to start in the Vuelta is already pushing themselves to the limit. No rider is currently doing that, apart from Sepp Kuss. Shorter stage races would create additional breathing space in this regard.

Why the tour is being left out

It is striking that the discussion centres solely on the Giro and the Vuelta. The reasons are obvious. The Tour de France operates on a completely different scale, both economically and in sporting terms. According to the UCI, more than ten million spectators line the route every year. The Tour de France is one of the world’s biggest live sporting events.

It would be almost inconceivable for the UCI to tamper with the most successful product of its sport. Accordingly, any reform is likely to affect the other two Grand Tours in particular. However, this is a politically explosive issue. A shortening of the race could be interpreted as an indirect establishment of a hierarchy: the Tour remains the benchmark, whilst the Giro and the Vuelta become smaller versions of the same concept. The race organisers have certainly not yet had their final say on this matter.

More stars, more excitement?

Supporters of shortening the race see this as a particular advantage. A 16-day Giro or a 16-day Vuelta would be much easier to fit into the season. This would increase the likelihood of more top riders competing in several Grand Tours each year.

At present, most general classification riders are focusing on a single main objective. A more compact format, on the other hand, could allow for more frequent head-to-head battles between the biggest stars. There would also be arguments in favour of this from the spectators’ point of view. In its report, the UCI highlights the predictability of many men’s stage races as a challenge to the sport’s appeal. Shorter races could be ridden more aggressively and leave less room for tactical waiting.

What would be lost

The counter-arguments, however, are just as obvious. The myth of a Grand Tour rests on its length. Three weeks do not simply mean three extra stages. They create a particular kind of strain that only a few riders can cope with. The third week, in particular, is traditionally regarded as the moment of truth. It is there that major collapses, surprising twists and the legendary crises occur – the very things that distinguish a Grand Tour from a one-week stage race.

​Furthermore, shorter Grand Tours could make the race significantly more difficult for breakaway riders. At present, the final few days in particular offer plenty of scope for riders who are not in contention for the general classification. After two weeks, the favourites’ teams often no longer have the strength or the interest to control every breakaway group. This is how the stage victories come about that make riders like Richard Carapaz or Mathieu van der Poel go down in history.

If five or six race days are cut, however, the importance of each individual stage increases. The teams of the general classification contenders are likely to take control much more frequently, whilst the sprinters’ teams would also have more opportunities to go for stage wins. There is a risk that the number of successful breakaways will decrease and that the favourites will share an even larger proportion of the prestigious stage victories amongst themselves.

A building block of a wider reform of the UCI

It is important not to view this debate in isolation. The UCI is currently considering a comprehensive reorganisation of professional cycling. This includes race blocks organised by geographical region, new participation requirements for teams, a strengthening of the ProSeries races and a clearer overall calendar structure.

The Grand Tours are merely one part of a wider plan. What matters, therefore, is not whether the Giro and the Vuelta will actually last 16 days instead of 21 in future. What matters is that, for the first time, the UCI is prepared to question even the sport’s most time-honoured formats. Until a few years ago, such a discussion would have been practically unthinkable. Today, it is quite officially part of cycling’s agenda for the future. Whether shortening the Grand Tours is ultimately a good or a bad thing is now a matter to be weighed up.