This years tour has a bigger emphasis on the indivdual Time Trial compared to last years. There is a lengthy 37km flat TT, and then a 17km uphill TT, however that averages only 3.5%, which should still be favorable for the strong TT guys. This makes for a tour that on paper should suit a rider like Chris Froome really well, and be harder for guys like Quintana and Porte who are not known for their TT prowess.
Less coastal stages will likely reduce the risk of dangerous cross wins that can cause big splits in the peleton like we saw last year with Nibali and Quintana being poorly positioned and losing over 2:00 on the second stage.
The Yellow Jersey : Worn by the current leader of the race, represents general time classification
The Green Jersey : Worn by the leader of the General points classification. A sprinters ranking.
The Polka-Dot Jersey : The jersey affiliated with the Best Climber Classification. More commonly known as "The King of The Mountains." It is very rare though that the best climber actually wins this classification though.
The White Jersey : For the Best Young Rider of the race. Basically the yellow jersey for 25 y.o. and younger. It is possible to win both the Yellow and White Jersey.
This Tour de France is the 103rd edition, it is 3366km long with 21 stages, and two rest days
General Info for new followers: GC stands for general classification and refers to riders who are competing to win the overall tour. Generally too be a good GC rider one must be a respectable individual time trialist (a solo ride against the clock), as well as someone with very good power to weight ratio, as that determines how fast one climbs. Almost every bike tour features many summit finishes, meaning that the last climb of a summit finish is a very important opportunity to gain time on rivals.
For those unfamiliar, in a time trial, which tends to be one flatter routes, bigger guys that put out more raw power (watts) are generally favored over lighter riders that might have better power/weight (w/kg) ratio. The reason for is that weight is a small penalty on flat ground, with the big player being air resistance. At typical time trial speeds, well over 90% of your power is spent overcoming air resistance. With good position on the bike, a riders drag coefficient does not become significantly larger even if the rider is a little bigger...which means that with similar amounts of drag the rider putting out more raw power will go faster.
For this edition of the tour there are three major contenders for the overall win: Chris Froome (Sky), Alberto Contador (Tinkoff Saxo), and Nairo Quintana (Movistar). There are some other names that could threaten podium that would be a surprise to win including Richie Porte and Tejay Van Garderen of BMC, Fabio Aru of Astana, Tom Doumalin of Giant Alpecin, and Thibaut Pinot of FDJ
Chris Froome - 2013/2015 TdF champion. The strongest of all the GC riders at time trialing in large part because he is a "bigger" guy at 67kg. Like all GC riders, Froome is a very good climber, though he tends to be a little more of a diesel (ride at a consistent pace) climber than a dynamic attack/recover pure climber. This tour should suit Froome well with a longer flat time trial and then a shorter uphill time trial averaging around 3.5%
Froome looked hit and miss early season, but generally performed well in his Tour prep ride, the Criterium du Dauphine, and his form is trending upward. If I had to pick, especially given past history, I'd have to give the nod of favorite to Froome.
Nairo Quintana - The small Columbian, around 58kg, is the best pure climber in the field. Quintana however is a smaller guy, and while he has been working on it it's likely he will lose a good chunk of time to some of the other guys, especially Froome, in the longer 37km TT, and possibly some time in the shorter uphill TT. Quintana can win this, as he is a much better climber than anyone else, but he is going to need either a shocker of a TT or spectacular mountain form to do so.
Quintana's results leading into the TdF have been really good. Strong performances with many stage wins and several week long stage race wins. Form going into the tour is slightly unknown, as he has been in Columbia preparing at altitude, opting to skip most of the usual Tour "tune up" stage races.
Might get some last hints in a week as I believe he is planning to do the short Route de Sud.
Alberto Contador - The spanish is a two time TdF champion and 7 time grand tour winner. An excellent, explosive climber and a fairly good time trialist his palmares and experience are unmatched.
Contador's form coming in should be good. He had a stellar prologue ITT at the Criterium du Dauphine, and overall looked to be in good form there.
Honarable Mentions:
Richie Porte - Looked pretty good at Dauphine, excellent prologue TT, and was generally able to follow attacks well. Will probably get better from there as he hadn't raced in a long time leading into the Dauphine. Rumor has it he is lighter than he has ever been at 58kg, which could see him being dangerous.
Porte makes a nice darkhorse. He has been an excellent weeklong stage racer for a while but has yet to do excellent in a three week grand tour. However, he had previously been on team sky working as a domestique in support of Froome. Now he is on BMC as a co-leader with Porte. He was set to lead the Giro for sky last year, but some ridiculously bad flat tire timing saw him lose tremendous time before the Giro hit the mountains, and then he had a bad crash and decided to pull out.
This is essentially Porte's debut attempt at a Grand Tour as a team leader.
Tejay Van Garderen - The current best hope for a US winner. Tejay is a strong climber and very good time trialist, but often struggles to respond to attacks or explosive finishes Does much better as a rhythm climber. The Tour suits him best, but it's still a tall ask for a Van Garderen win. Jury is still out on his form, he has had one really good and one really bad day so far at the Tour de Suisse after a long absence from racing.
Fabio Aru - Another outside shot. Aru has been gradually emerging as an overall Grand Tour contender over the past few years. Last year at the Giro he rode a better last week than anyone, and while Contador had built up a nice margin Aru was cutting into that.
I don't see him as the consistent, complete package needed to win the Tour yet, and he didn't look all that good at the Dauphine; but he is another rider that could suprise.
Thibaut Pinot - The best hope of the french. In the past Pinot has been a good climber with a pretty weak TT. He was been working very hard on that the past few years, and has done quite well in TTs this year, including a legitimate win on a flat TT. If he can produce another ride like that on the flat 37km TT, he could be in the mix.
His form so far this year has been generally good, but perhaps lacked a little bit of consistency.
Peter Sagan - Don't think I need to say anything else. Sagan doesn't crash, and no else is going to get the jersey from him.
For this new to the Tour, the green jersey is basically the "sprinters" point competition. Only a handful of guys can actually win overall, but there are other different styles of riding and most of these riders target wins on individual days (stages). The sprinters jersey awards points for high stage finishes, and at some intermediate points in stages. Sagan is basically unbeatable here because he is a top 10 sprinter outright on a flat stage, but can get over some serious hills (but not long alpine climbs) that the other sprinters have no chance on. So Sagan does okay on flat sprint stages, and then mops up crazy points along all the other hilly or medium mountain type days.
This year teamliquid is doing a fantasy league run like last year over on velogames. Anyone is welcome, and encouraged, to join the team. Format is pretty simple, you get 100 pts to pick 8 riders: 2 GC/All Rounder guys, 1 climbers, 1 sprinter, 3 domestique/breakaway guys, and one wildcard. Points are scored for stage places, GC placings, Green Jersey standings, Mountains standings, top positions over all Cat 1 and HC climbs, and then some other small points for being in breaks and 'assisting' riders.
Details can be found on the website.
If you wish to join the team it's pretty simple:
1)Head to www.velogames.com 2)Create an account and make your team 3)Go to SignUp and enter our league code, 341903390217 4) Hit submit
For anyone interested that rides bikes and feels inspired watching the best do their thing, I'd challenge everyone to get out and do an epic ride in the hills (or on the flats if you have no hills) and post them up. I'll say the challenge opens on the 15th and closes on the 19th.
There will be three categories for:
1) Longest Duration 2) Most Elevation Gain 3) Highest VAM on a climb greater than 300m in elevation change (A 4-6 min climb will be accepted in lieu of a 300m+ climb, but with a 10% reduction to account for the shorter duration)
So even if you don't have hours of time you can take a stab at number 3. Go out, grab your phone or GPS, and post em up to strava. Small prizes TBA will be associated with each category.
- Froome has won more than one Tour, he also won last year not only in 2013 ;-) - Porte already debuted as a Grand Tour leader (Giro remember?) - I reckon Bardet will probably do better than Tejay (with TVG is every year the same, I so hope he shows me wrong, no luck so far :'( ) - Don't forget Nibali will be there to help Aru/make a surprise (realistically, he should be nowhere near the form needed to be a contender for himself but can be a decent help to Aru. Regarding Aru, don't forget Nibali's performances these past years, awful until the big race then puft great. Aru can be going for something similar, although I agree with your assessment that he is probably a little bit inconsistent still) - Personally I'm eager to see what will D. Martin do. Plus Yates and Meintjes should also provide some youth unpredictability and fun attacks.
Should be good, lets get some fantasy TdF going like last year!
I think Bardet and Dan Martin also have goods odds, showing great form in the Criterium. Surprisingly though, it feels like we have fewer favorites than the usual years.
No really really difficult stages, but plenty of moderate difficulty. Stage 5,7,8,9,12,15,18,19,20 all mountains, 9 stages is more than we usually see, that's for sure.
Upon closer inspection: -Stage 5 isn't really a mountain stage (why it isn't called hilly is beyond me). I guess you have a couple punchy hills that Valverde and Purito like, but the finish is enough away, that I really can't see a solo finish from 14km away. -Stage 7 will be an interesting first test, with a 12km @ 6.5%, and a 7km descent to the finish line -Stage 8 is a tough one, but it really depends how hard the peleton rides. Tormalet is probably the 2nd most difficult climb in the tour of paper, but it happens so early on in the stage, and is also followed by a relatively easy category 2 climb of only 5% for 8km, but also 2 col's of 8% for 7-8km. If the teams end up valuing this stage, it's likely that the winner here will win the tour. Not a single flat km for the last 110km. -Stage 9 is too difficult to analyze, idk. Mountain finish on a 10km climb at a steady 7.2% makes me think that most wont attack here after being tired from the day before, and also from there's no steep part to launch an attack from. That said you have two shorter and steeper climbs of 8.2% and 8.5% before hand, and that could really shake it up beforehand. I don't think the first two category 1 climbs of the stage will do much. -Stage 12, here we go! The second most famous, and the most difficult climb that's ever included in the tour. That's right, a long flat stage in preparation a Mont Ventoux summit finish. A 16km climb at almost 9%, as always, this is an absolute treat. A few kilometers before the finish line we see everyone together, and then boom, 10 minute deficits at the finish line. -Stage 15, a stage for the descenders. A stage similar to stage 8, but shorter climbs, and unfortunately we get to see the ascent of Grand Colombier from the easier side, but that also means we're going to see a hella of a difficult descent down the trickier side. If you're a GC guy with good descending skills, I think attacking half way up the Grand Colombier is a good time go, depends on the state of the race though -Stage 17, have we seen this climb in the Tour before? This is probably my favorite stage of the Tour, and maybe the best I've ever seen. It's almost like a Mont Ventoux with a 7km downhill breaking it up in half, and it only gets steeper as you get closer to the finish. Very exciting, that descent in the middle lends to so many possibilities, I simply hope the GC will be close enough to make use of the relatively minor gaps that can be created here. -Stage 19, a weird stage with strange terrain. A very steep start to the summit finish, but flattens out eventually, not sure if someone would dare attacking there, though it could really break it up if successful. I think that someone who is weaker can lose a lot of time here, but I don't expect a 2nd or 3rd place GC contender to make up a lot of time here. -Stage 20, meeeeh. I guess that this is the Queen Stage? I dunno, Joux Plane is a very difficult climb, and I suppose after a 4th straight day of climbing it will be tough. I suppose they were going for four tough days instead of one crazy one.
All in all though, it's pretty good. The route looks good, I suppose the main bad thing is that with the Olympics this year, a lot of cyclists need to save something for that, so that's why we don't see everyone here or going all out like Nibali. I'm excited!
edit: And get ready for my boy Sagan, this will be his strongest Tour de France ever. 4 stages and green jersey is my prediction. PS: Nobody but me is allowed to have him on their fantasy team.
edit2: You messed up the title For the past 5 years it was always Tour de France ####, and you flipped it.
Please sign up, you can change your players as much as you like until July 2nd. Same as last year, you have 100 points to pick 9 riders: 2 all rounders, 2 climbers, 1 sprinter, 3 domestiques, 1 wildcard.
My team name is Hors Categorie as last year, get ready to see me in first a lot Hope we get more than the 11 sign ups last year! I've spent a surprising amount of time making this team optimal, and ugh, there's some decisions that are so difficult for me. Second sprinter or another GC guy that will end 5th-15th, mmmm.
- Froome has won more than one Tour, he also won last year not only in 2013 ;-)
Whoops. Fixed.
- Porte already debuted as a Grand Tour leader (Giro remember?)
I acknowledge this in the write up. I talk about him doing the Giro but having his quest derailed early. Say it's 'essentially' his debut attempt because he got derailed at the Giro before he ever got a chance to be tested.
- I reckon Bardet will probably do better than Tejay (with TVG is every year the same, I so hope he shows me wrong, no luck so far :'( )
'
Will be interesting. As good of a climber as Bardet is, I see him as more of a stage winner type guy than serious overall contender. I don't think he TT's that well, and has a much weaker team around him than TJ. I agree TJ is kinda the same every year (though he was going well last year, but not good enough to win), but I'll take you up on this one and say I bet TJ finishes higher than Bardet.
- Don't forget Nibali will be there to help Aru/make a surprise (realistically, he should be nowhere near the form needed to be a contender for himself but can be a decent help to Aru. Regarding Aru, don't forget Nibali's performances these past years, awful until the big race then puft great. Aru can be going for something similar, although I agree with your assessment that he is probably a little bit inconsistent still)
Aru will be interesting. Guy definitely has potential. He went as well as anybody the last week of of the Giro in 2015' except maybe Kruisjwijk, so he can definitely last the whole time. It's just a question of is his form this year good enough, and can he maintain consistency. A few rough spots early on did damage to him in 2015's Giro.
With respect to Nibali, I still don't know if he intentionally just screws around in stage races and never plays his cards, or if it's just somehow related to the way he trains. It's weird to see him go so hopelessly in races until the GT and then be pretty solid. Or in the case of the Giro completely lackluster until the last two days and then suddenly quite good.
- Personally I'm eager to see what will D. Martin do. Plus Yates and Meintjes should also provide some youth unpredictability and fun attacks.
Definitely. Martin has gone very nicely. It will be interesting to see if he plays his card more as a GC guy, or goes on the hunt for stages. He's looked strong in the one week races, especially the Dauphine.
Please sign up, you can change your players as much as you like until July 2nd. Same as last year, you have 100 points to pick 9 riders: 2 all rounders, 2 climbers, 1 sprinter, 3 domestiques, 1 wildcard.
My team name is Hors Categorie as last year, get ready to see me in first a lot Hope we get more than the 11 sign ups last year! I've spent a surprising amount of time making this team optimal, and ugh, there's some decisions that are so difficult for me. Second sprinter or another GC guy that will end 5th-15th, mmmm.
Sweet. When I'm back I'll update on of the reserved posts with info about this.
Tour de Suisse has also ended tonight today. I'm having trouble comparing the Dauphine with it since the rider caliber was so different, but I definitely don't see TJV as a podium contender after his Suisse performance.
And man, Columbia is taking over, though it's odd to me that other South America riders aren't being picked up.
On June 20 2016 03:30 bluzi wrote: Do you think this will be an action tour ? or a snoozefest with 25 min GC win ?
Well a more than 15 minute GC win will probably never happen at a Grand Tour again.
I think it's hard to tell right now. The organizers made the tour kind of balanced, instead in of ramping up the difficulty with time, which increases the odds of someone like Froome just playing defence after winning Mont Ventoux or something on stage 12.
I don't think stage 20 is a good one to get time on, and I'm quite iffy about 19 as well. In that regard the Giro was better imo, but we have all the big names here, moreso than any other grand tour, so for that I think it's worth tuning in.
On June 20 2016 03:10 FiWiFaKi wrote: Tour de Suisse has also ended tonight today. I'm having trouble comparing the Dauphine with it since the rider caliber was so different, but I definitely don't see TJV as a podium contender after his Suisse performance.
And man, Columbia is taking over, though it's odd to me that other South America riders aren't being picked up.
Yea and the Route de Sud was even worse. It's like Quintana vs B listers. That said, an outright win on a TT is always nice for a GC guy.
TJV I see as a longshot for podium. If we lose one or two of the main players from crashing or something, then I could see TJV sneaking in...but that said last year was a MUCH more favorable opportunity for him and he was holding onto third very tenuously before he got ill. I'd give him like a 5% chance of a podium finish.
I was rather impressed by Talansky at Suisse. First life I've seen from him since what, 2014? Don't think he will be a factor at the tour, if he is even riding it, but maybe could get a stage win under the right circumstances.
On June 20 2016 03:30 bluzi wrote: Do you think this will be an action tour ? or a snoozefest with 25 min GC win ?
25 min GC win? Did you mean 2:30 second win? It's been decades since somebody won by 25+ mins,
Last big margin was the 2014 Tour where Nibali was on crazy good form and everyone else that was a top GC guy crashed out so he just cruised to a win.
Nairo is certainly going to give Froome a hell of a fight, and Contador and possibly Porte may also prove to be serious contenders. If none of those guys make mistakes and lose time on the flatter stages this should be a really good Tour in my opinion.
Stage 1 looks like a sprint stage. Stage 2 appears to end with 2km around 6.5%. Punchy kind of finish. Stage 3 looks like sprint finish on an uphill drag. Stage 4 looks rather the same Stage 5 I'm seeing different stuff than you. It's hilly all the way to the finish. With a 3.3km @ 6% summiting 2.5km from the finish. Stage 6 looks like a sprint stage Stage 7 pretty much seeing what you talked about. Stage 8 generally agree. If it gets ridden really hard, a bad day here will absolutely end your Tour. If it's ridden at tempo most of the way then shouldn't be too much in the way of timegaps, guys should be able to get back on or close coming down the descent. Stage 9 In agreement about the stage depending on how previous day went. Not so sure about attacks though, they may come. 7.2% is decent grade, enough that drafting is saving you at best 2-3%. If someone is feeling good coming off 8 and sensing others are not, it's quite possible to see some action in my opinion. Probably a good breakaway stage, especially if 8 is hard Stage 10 - Sprint, but gotta make it over 2km of 6.5% with 9km to go. Stage 11 - Looks like a sprint stage Stage 12 - Fireworks up a massive mountain. Bad day here is lights out Stage 13 - TT of who is not too tired Stage 14 - Sprint Stage 15 - Lots of little climbs early at modest gradients, but then a longer one of 13km of 7% followed by 8.5 of 7.5% with a descent to a short finishing kick. Good breakaway stage, and maybe some small GC gaps. Stage 16 - Flatter stage with some sort of hill at the finish. Maybe a sprint stage, or maybe a stage for puncheurs based on exactly what that is at the end. Stage 17 - Interesting stage. 1500m of climbing around 8% broken up with a descent in the middle. Good options for the breakaway, and possibly for the GC guys depending on technicality of the descent. Stage 18 - Uphill TT, but only 3.5% average. Definitely more on the TT end of things than the climber end of things, but has some steep sections. I'm honestly not sure who is favored for the stage win on this. Stage 19 - Summit finish going steep, flatter, somewhat steep. If you have the legs and the group is broken up and attack near the bottom could do a lot, but with teammates around attack probably won't go far. Stage probably plays out in the last 3-4km Stage 20 - Fourth hard day in a row. Who's doing well with energy could play a role, but with the descent small time gaps can likely be pulled back. However, the climb is long and hard so guys that crack too soon could lose serious time. Stage 21 - The usual Circuit parade with Kittel victory.
On June 20 2016 03:10 FiWiFaKi wrote: Tour de Suisse has also ended tonight today. I'm having trouble comparing the Dauphine with it since the rider caliber was so different, but I definitely don't see TJV as a podium contender after his Suisse performance.
And man, Columbia is taking over, though it's odd to me that other South America riders aren't being picked up.
Yea and the Route de Sud was even worse. It's like Quintana vs B listers. That said, an outright win on a TT is always nice for a GC guy.
TJV I see as a longshot for podium. If we lose one or two of the main players from crashing or something, then I could see TJV sneaking in...but that said last year was a MUCH more favorable opportunity for him and he was holding onto third very tenuously before he got ill. I'd give him like a 5% chance of a podium finish.
I was rather impressed by Talansky at Suisse. First life I've seen from him since what, 2014? Don't think he will be a factor at the tour, if he is even riding it, but maybe could get a stage win under the right circumstances.
Yeah, Stage 4 was hilarious to me. Easiest 1-2 in the life of Movistar. I didn't watch much of it befores watching the last 3-5km of each stage.
I dunno, the one thing that BMC have going for them is that have the TVG + Richie combo, which will be a nice help in mountain stages. We will see, my prediction for TJV to end 9-10th, and Richie 5-6th.
The one rider I'm very excited for is Alaphilipe, I've been very impressed with him in the last two months, but not sure how worn out he is, really considering him for my fantasy.
edit: Ugh, this fantasy is driving me insane. Currently spending 30~ points on my all rounders, and 14~ on my 3 unclassified riders (I think I've found a good bunch). I'm trying to stretch the remaining 56 points on my last 4 riders really far. I am excited talking to you guys once you make your team.
On June 20 2016 03:10 FiWiFaKi wrote: Tour de Suisse has also ended tonight today. I'm having trouble comparing the Dauphine with it since the rider caliber was so different, but I definitely don't see TJV as a podium contender after his Suisse performance.
And man, Columbia is taking over, though it's odd to me that other South America riders aren't being picked up.
Yea and the Route de Sud was even worse. It's like Quintana vs B listers. That said, an outright win on a TT is always nice for a GC guy.
TJV I see as a longshot for podium. If we lose one or two of the main players from crashing or something, then I could see TJV sneaking in...but that said last year was a MUCH more favorable opportunity for him and he was holding onto third very tenuously before he got ill. I'd give him like a 5% chance of a podium finish.
I was rather impressed by Talansky at Suisse. First life I've seen from him since what, 2014? Don't think he will be a factor at the tour, if he is even riding it, but maybe could get a stage win under the right circumstances.
Yeah, Stage 4 was hilarious to me. Easiest 1-2 in the life of Movistar. I didn't watch much of it befores watching the last 3-5km of each stage.
I dunno, the one thing that BMC have going for them is that have the TVG + Richie combo, which will be a nice help in mountain stages. We will see, my prediction for TJV to end 9-10th, and Richie 5-6th.
The one rider I'm very excited for is Alaphilipe, I've been very impressed with him in the last two months, but not sure how worn out he is, really considering him for my fantasy.
edit: Ugh, this fantasy is driving me insane. Currently spending 30~ points on my all rounders, and 14~ on my 3 unclassified riders (I think I've found a good bunch). I'm trying to stretch the remaining 56 points on my last 4 riders really far. I am excited talking to you guys once you make your team.
Can you really make a team yet? I haven't seen confirmed rosters anywhere yet
On June 20 2016 03:10 FiWiFaKi wrote: Tour de Suisse has also ended tonight today. I'm having trouble comparing the Dauphine with it since the rider caliber was so different, but I definitely don't see TJV as a podium contender after his Suisse performance.
And man, Columbia is taking over, though it's odd to me that other South America riders aren't being picked up.
Yea and the Route de Sud was even worse. It's like Quintana vs B listers. That said, an outright win on a TT is always nice for a GC guy.
TJV I see as a longshot for podium. If we lose one or two of the main players from crashing or something, then I could see TJV sneaking in...but that said last year was a MUCH more favorable opportunity for him and he was holding onto third very tenuously before he got ill. I'd give him like a 5% chance of a podium finish.
I was rather impressed by Talansky at Suisse. First life I've seen from him since what, 2014? Don't think he will be a factor at the tour, if he is even riding it, but maybe could get a stage win under the right circumstances.
Yeah, Stage 4 was hilarious to me. Easiest 1-2 in the life of Movistar. I didn't watch much of it befores watching the last 3-5km of each stage.
I dunno, the one thing that BMC have going for them is that have the TVG + Richie combo, which will be a nice help in mountain stages. We will see, my prediction for TJV to end 9-10th, and Richie 5-6th.
The one rider I'm very excited for is Alaphilipe, I've been very impressed with him in the last two months, but not sure how worn out he is, really considering him for my fantasy.
edit: Ugh, this fantasy is driving me insane. Currently spending 30~ points on my all rounders, and 14~ on my 3 unclassified riders (I think I've found a good bunch). I'm trying to stretch the remaining 56 points on my last 4 riders really far. I am excited talking to you guys once you make your team.
Can you really make a team yet? I haven't seen confirmed rosters anywhere yet
Yeah, if you go to the website it lists the riders by their cost and everything. Opened on the 17th I believe. I mean I guess it might be subject to change, but the Tour does start in 13 days, so they shouldn't keep it completely last minute. I haven't been looking for the announcements of the riders, just found the info there.
All the riders might not be there yet though, as not every team has 9 people yet, but I'm not sure if some riders are just unpickable.
edit: To your previous post, I don't really know what to think of Talansky. He was alright at the Tour de Suisse, but he got really broken down on the last day, losing 56 seconds on riders like Barguil, Rui Costa, Pantano, Izaguirre, Lopez, and TVG. You know, these are riders that I'd expect 1-2~ of to get top 10 at the Tour.
I expect the top 5 to be Froome, Quintana, Contador, Porte, and Aru, they to me are far and away the favorites. And after that, I'd expect top 10 placements from Pinot, Bardet, Valverde, Nibali, TJVG... And you still have so many strong riders left, whether it's Barguil, Zakarin (maybe), Alaphilippe, Dumoulin (who's definitely coming), Dan Martin after an amazing Dauphine performance, Louis Meintjes, not to mention all the "domestiques" that the Sky power house is bringing here. So in that regard, losing 56 seconds on a stage with riders that are only sparsely listed here... I dunno, the fact that it was a very weak line-up for the Tour de Suisse is probably closer to the truth than an on form Talansky.
Well my team is made. Might still make a change or two, but feel good about most it. Mostly just agonizing over what sort of strategy I wanted to go for in terms of who costs how much and the like. Lots of agonizing about weather to go with the type of rider I'm pretty sure will go at least 1000+ pts and extra lesser names, or a more balanced team.
Simple example being do you take a guy you know should do really well, like Froome, and score 1500-2500 pts, but then accept that you might not get some other good guys down the line, or go for more balance with 2-3 solid GC guys that won't necessarily score huge points, but should rake in something decent.
I feel pretty good about my rider picks, and that they will do okay, just have to see if I got it right in terms of optimization.
edit: To your previous post, I don't really know what to think of Talansky. He was alright at the Tour de Suisse, but he got really broken down on the last day, losing 56 seconds on riders like Barguil, Rui Costa, Pantano, Izaguirre, Lopez, and TVG. You know, these are riders that I'd expect 1-2~ of to get top 10 at the Tour.
I expect the top 5 to be Froome, Quintana, Contador, Porte, and Aru, they to me are far and away the favorites. And after that, I'd expect top 10 placements from Pinot, Bardet, Valverde, Nibali, TJVG... And you still have so many strong riders left, whether it's Barguil, Zakarin (maybe), Alaphilippe, Dumoulin (who's definitely coming), Dan Martin after an amazing Dauphine performance, Louis Meintjes, not to mention all the "domestiques" that the Sky power house is bringing here. So in that regard, losing 56 seconds on a stage with riders that are only sparsely listed here... I dunno, the fact that it was a very weak line-up for the Tour de Suisse is probably closer to the truth than an on form Talansky.
Yea, I don't see Talansky having an especially high overall placing. I'd be utterly surprised at a top 5, and very impressed by a top 10.
I see him as a guy that might very well have a bad day, drop down the standings a bit, and then go breakaway hunting for a mountain stage win. Against the right break composition on a day where the peleton lets the break go I think he could be extremely dangerous.
Well, turns out that Talansky is not participating in the Tour this year (rather will focus on the Vuelta).
Yeah, definitely some tough calls to make... In the end though I went with a team that my heart says will have 4 GC guys in the top 6-7, and 2 sprinters that will be in the top 5, while neglecting the overwhelming favorites, as they are too safe of picks imo.
For 26 points, I wouldn't pick Froome, even if you told me he would win the Tour de France (well I'd give it a long hard bit of thinking). It's just picking him leaves you with 9.25 points average for the rest, so you don't really get to pick another top pick, unless you really want to sack the rest of your team.
I came back today to look over my team, and I feel good about what I've chosen, maybe I'm giving away too much about my team now, but the only real debate I'm having now is whether I want to downgrade one of my top dogs to get somewhere between 4-8 points, and get some unclassified riders above 4 cost... I feel like many of the 6 and 8 cost guys will easy double what any of these 4 point guys will do... But doubling might be 400 points instead of 200... And getting a GC guy that will get 1200 instead of 700, which would be worth more.
By the way Eric, little thing, but in your post following the OP you said: " Format is pretty simple, you get 100 pts to pick 8 riders: 2 GC/All Rounder guys, 2 climbers, 3 domestique/breakaway guys, and one wildcard", but you actually pick 9 riders and you didn't include a sprinter in that list. Might also be nice to have a quick link in that post to the standings afterwards, just to make navigation easy (last year I was too lazy to bookmark it, and I always ended up clicking the link on the third page to access it haha).
edit: Most teams and riders have been getting confirmed in the last 1-3 days. This article here seems like a good way to keep up with it.
That sounds almost exactly like the agonizing I'm doing in terms of slight downgrades to go up from 4 pts guys to a few 6 or 8 point guys I like.
After analyzing last years teams though, one of the key's seemed to be having that top GC pick. Maybe Froome was a little cheaper last year, but if you look at teams in the top page of the standings nearly every single one had Froome. That said, Froome did score very high, 2300 if I remember correctly, so if you would have gone with Quintana instead you might not have done as well. Obviously Sagan as well, but I think that's a no brainer. No way Sagan is going to score less than 1500pts, unless he crashes...and Sagan doesn't really crash as we saw at San Remo and Roubaix.
The downside is it's more of an eggs in one basket strategy because if you're guy crashed out...you're done. But I think even 26 pts is worth it IF you're confident your guy will be a 2000+ pts scorer.
Yeah, looking over last year point scorers, the winner did get significantly more than the others (Froome 2246, Quintana 1544, Valverde 1451, Bardet 977)... So you're right the winner gets a lot more, but also looking at it that last year I had 6096 points, and really I had only 4 riders who ended up doing stuff, having a lot of holes in my team, having "meh" domestiques, and three just poor picks.
So at a cost of 26, he'd have to get at least 1585 points to be an average performer on my team to get me 6096 which I had last year, and I think one of will probably be closer to 7000 this year, and given that Quintana obtained 1544 and ended second, really means he must finish first to justify him. Sagan is another one of those hella expensive ones, and making my life difficult. Choosing a top GC guy, a top climber, and Sagan just leaves absolutely nothing left for the rest of the team (though I suppose if they perform, that could be 6000 points between those 3, like you said, just very risky). The more I think about this the worse it gets haha.
I think I'm going to step back until closer to the start of the race now.
Bouhanni won't participate. Because he hurt his hand fighting some drunk dudes outside his hotel that made too much noise. A week before the Tour starts, what a professional lol. His team must be seething with anger.
Though given how Femke van den Driessche got away with it, not a bad idea.
Anyway, TdF begins in 4 days, and all the rosters have been revealed. Nothing too unexpected, all the big guns are here - get hyped!
Wait, she got away with it? I thought her career was ruined. Lots of crying on the news.
Reading up on it now she ended up banned for 6 years and stripped of all accomplishments after October 10th. She also quit.
Seems sufficient for a 19 year old
What I meant is that they didn't notice until the race was over, which is just crazy to me. Goes to show how easily it could be missed.
And yeah, suitable punishment, that's for sure.
On June 29 2016 20:02 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Bouhanni won't participate. Because he hurt his hand fighting some drunk dudes outside his hotel that made too much noise. A week before the Tour starts, what a professional lol. His team must be seething with anger.
Oof, so sore. Yesterday at 4pm I biked 40km to gf's house, and from my house I have this really nasty 175m descent at 6%, which I never want to think about when I have to go back (and I live in a city), as well as a "short" 45 meter at 11%~. Roughly 350m of gross elevation gain for each one way trip. Then I went back at noonish today, and I got caught out in the nastiest hail and pouring rain. At least I don't need to pressure wash my bike anymore. Made it worse that I've been lazy in fixing my bike, and the front derailleur doesn't want to shift to the larger gear (I tried, but I messed it up even more, I'll need to sit down and work on it when I have more time), so I was enjoying a cadence of 110 for much of the ride (it let me improve my Sagan tuck on the downhills, after yesterday, mad respect for him, there's so little stability in that position). Also doing squats for the day before didn't make it any easier.
Anyway, I've been working really hard to get into top shape, and I'd definitely like to do a challenging ride on one of the off-days in the TdF, like many of us did last year, though I think there's no topping your Pikes Peak (I think, right?) L_Master.
My goal for this year is cycling the highest road in Canada, which will be a 110km road from Calgary one way, but I think I'll go back as well, so 220km, hopefully in the time range of 11-12 hours, and an elevation gain of 1800 meters for the ascent way. My bike ride last year from Calgary to Lake Louise was longer at 185km, and "only" 1000ish meters of climbing, so this will be a nice step up. If I want to go above this though, I'll have to move to Colorado S: (Or Mauna Kea one day).
Kind of unfortunate that Canada's highest paved road is at 2200 meters.
+1 for the fantasy league. I haven't followed in a few years outside of the US domestic pro scene where my brother was racing, so I was kind of guessing.
If I feel less crazy, it will be something like those rides, but omitting some. I'll probably aim for at least 3000m of climbing.
The Peak's a real bitch (awesome ride though). If I had mountain gearing it would be fine, but grinding out 60rpm for 2-3 hours up 10% grade just tears up the legs for the rest of the ride. Or doing it at the end would be "I don't want to think about it" levels of exhausting.
Of course the final option is to be a disgusting freak of nature like Robert Gesink and be TdF Climber imba.
PS: Mauna Kea you say? This is my number one bucketlist climb in history to do for obvious reasons. Be really cool to get a group together, especially since you need a damn MTB for the 8km or whatever it is dirt section.
PPS: When you talk about 175m descent and 45m ascent...is this the distance you travel on the bike, or the total elevation gain?
Tomorrow scares the feck out of me though. 25kph sustained crosswinds forecasted, with gusts up to 50kph. Coastal sections especially will be scary. Hopefully no GC guys make mistakes. Kittel for the stage win.
If I feel less crazy, it will be something like those rides, but omitting some. I'll probably aim for at least 3000m of climbing.
The Peak's a real bitch (awesome ride though). If I had mountain gearing it would be fine, but grinding out 60rpm for 2-3 hours up 10% grade just tears up the legs for the rest of the ride. Or doing it at the end would be "I don't want to think about it" levels of exhausting.
Of course the final option is to be a disgusting freak of nature like Robert Gesink and be TdF Climber imba.
PS: Mauna Kea you say? This is my number one bucketlist climb in history to do for obvious reasons. Be really cool to get a group together, especially since you need a damn MTB for the 8km or whatever it is dirt section.
PPS: When you talk about 175m descent and 45m ascent...is this the distance you travel on the bike, or the total elevation gain?
I meant elevation gain (a 45 meter length wouldn't be too impressive). My city is insane hilly, it feels like I'm always doing +/- 3% whenever I'm biking anywhere, it's kind of nice, but not really. It's made my bike style extremely explosive, where I'm off the saddle at every climb, since they're relatively short but consistent. I enjoy role playing as Contador lol.
I have no issue saying I'm at nowhere near your level, and that Ouch #1 route is like the most insane thing I've ever seen, I'm pretty sure that I would say fuck it, since I'm going to die after that second climb and go back home. The amount of mountains you have there is wonderful. How much of an impact is the oxygen, especially say on Pikes Peak? I go scrambling in the mountains a lot, and reach elevations of 2500-2800m on more than a monthly basis, and I don't have any trouble coping with it on foot, but I imagine 4200m is a bit tougher to deal with?
Yes, Mauna Kea is the dream, I think you can do it all on a road bike with 25mm wheels no problem, the altitude and the 70km of continuous climbing is what makes it difficult I think (though you're already prepared for that since you have those kinds of elevation there). I would love to go, I don't really know how difficult it'd be to organize, but as I've said before, I've recently finished university and been focusing on my health a lot, and I think it's something I'd be prepared for in 3-6 months. If you're serious about it, I would enjoy getting in contact with you in the future and figure out the details (though you should be prepared to wait an hour or so at the summit [or the information center], I'm not really willing to go below 160lbs bodyweight for my other goals).
On July 02 2016 13:53 L_Master wrote: I have only on thing left to say:
LET"S GO QUINTANA!!!!!!!!!!
Tomorrow scares the feck out of me though. 25kph sustained crosswinds forecasted, with gusts up to 50kph. Coastal sections especially will be scary. Hopefully no GC guys make mistakes. Kittel for the stage win.
Hah, so you've put your money on Quintana and Kittel, lets see how that works out for you. I don't think Kittel is at all with worth his massive cost, but we shall see. Only decision I still have left is Aru + Zakarin or Pinot + Dan Martin. I ended up going with the second choice, hoping for the best, Pinot is such a difficult rider to cheer for.
edit: Also 4h30 left before rosters lock. So if anyone hasn't yet made a team, come make one, we have 10 entries, it'd be cool if we beat the 11 entries we had last year. I would be happy if Froome loses some time elsewhere, I'd prefer to see team Sky attack instead of play defence with their insane line up.
On July 02 2016 19:02 Skynx wrote: Hoping for a Nairo win this year but he looked kinda weak in Route du Sud Thanks for the OP as always L
You thought he looked weak? o.O
He chilled in a 2 man breakaway the first day till near the end getting in some training. Day 2 was just a flat day with nothing to say. Then on day 3 he WINS a flat ITT. Yes, the field at Route de Sud had no big names at all, but guys like Sylvain Chavanel aren't hopeless at TT. Not that it means he's going to go out and put a minute into Froome at the Tours first TT, but I can't see how winning a ITT for a guy like Quintana can be seen as anything other than a solid performance at worst.
Then on day 4 Quintana's teammate pulls for a while and then heads up the road, obviously being his teammate Quintana doesn't chase him down. He then casually follows the wheels of guys trying to get back up to his teammate, Soler, looking as relaxed as possible, and then with Soler's victory assured casually sprints by Carthy for 2nd.
I think that's about as good as you can look without having legitimate strong GC rivals to test you.
If I feel less crazy, it will be something like those rides, but omitting some. I'll probably aim for at least 3000m of climbing.
The Peak's a real bitch (awesome ride though). If I had mountain gearing it would be fine, but grinding out 60rpm for 2-3 hours up 10% grade just tears up the legs for the rest of the ride. Or doing it at the end would be "I don't want to think about it" levels of exhausting.
Of course the final option is to be a disgusting freak of nature like Robert Gesink and be TdF Climber imba.
PS: Mauna Kea you say? This is my number one bucketlist climb in history to do for obvious reasons. Be really cool to get a group together, especially since you need a damn MTB for the 8km or whatever it is dirt section.
PPS: When you talk about 175m descent and 45m ascent...is this the distance you travel on the bike, or the total elevation gain?
I meant elevation gain (a 45 meter length wouldn't be too impressive). My city is insane hilly, it feels like I'm always doing +/- 3% whenever I'm biking anywhere, it's kind of nice, but not really. It's made my bike style extremely explosive, where I'm off the saddle at every climb, since they're relatively short but consistent. I enjoy role playing as Contador lol.
I have no issue saying I'm at nowhere near your level, and that Ouch #1 route is like the most insane thing I've ever seen, I'm pretty sure that I would say fuck it, since I'm going to die after that second climb and go back home. The amount of mountains you have there is wonderful. How much of an impact is the oxygen, especially say on Pikes Peak? I go scrambling in the mountains a lot, and reach elevations of 2500-2800m on more than a monthly basis, and I don't have any trouble coping with it on foot, but I imagine 4200m is a bit tougher to deal with?
Yea, my city is like that too. Flat roads basically don't exist in Colorado Springs, and where you can find a little bit east of the city it's all stupid pothole ridden roads with 80kph+ speed limits. It's either climbs, or nothing but up and down rollers where you drop down a 5-10% grade, then go back up 15-20m over and over and over.
Honestly, I think the second route is much harder. Route 1 does pack slightly more climbing into a tighter span, but the second route has the same climbing and is also 30km longer, and more importantly includes the ever relentless Pikes Peak, which changes the game.
As for the altitude, it makes a HUGE difference, especially as you start to work your way up towards treeline above 3.300m. I'd say power is down 5-10% by that altitude, and as you get near the summit you're probably looking at a 25-30% reduction in power, which is huge. Usually near the top I'm working my butt off to hold a power that would be almost a coffee shop ride cruise at the base at 2000m.
On July 02 2016 15:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: Yes, Mauna Kea is the dream, I think you can do it all on a road bike with 25mm wheels no problem, the altitude and the 70km of continuous climbing is what makes it difficult I think (though you're already prepared for that since you have those kinds of elevation there). I would love to go, I don't really know how difficult it'd be to organize, but as I've said before, I've recently finished university and been focusing on my health a lot, and I think it's something I'd be prepared for in 3-6 months. If you're serious about it, I would enjoy getting in contact with you in the future and figure out the details (though you should be prepared to wait an hour or so at the summit [or the information center], I'm not really willing to go below 160lbs bodyweight for my other goals).
I'd love to do it, but I definitely need to have a stable, full time job first. My timeline is probably more likely to be in the 8-16 month timeline. I've got a friend or two that are potentially interested sometime in fall of 2017.
From my reading, you don't have a chance on a road bike, even with 28cm wheels. Normal dirt wouldn't be an issue, but apparently it's this ridiculously soft/spongy lava dust that wheels sink right into. Many people's reports I've read said they've struggled with traction even on the MTB. The guy who has the current KOM tried to go complete road bike, and spent at least 30 minutes walking on that dirt section (no power, speed around 1-1.5 mph).
On July 02 2016 15:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: Hah, so you've put your money on Quintana and Kittel, lets see how that works out for you. I don't think Kittel is at all with worth his massive cost, but we shall see. Only decision I still have left is Aru + Zakarin or Pinot + Dan Martin. I ended up going with the second choice, hoping for the best, Pinot is such a difficult rider to cheer for.
edit: Also 4h30 left before rosters lock. So if anyone hasn't yet made a team, come make one, we have 10 entries, it'd be cool if we beat the 11 entries we had last year. I would be happy if Froome loses some time elsewhere, I'd prefer to see team Sky attack instead of play defence with their insane line up.
Quintana yes. That's like 75% reason, 25% heart when it comes to fantasy. I think he's going to give Froome one viscious battle this year, and be right up there. He will win some mountains stages and finish high at the very least, and Froome was several points more.
I'm also just plain rooting for Quinatana because he is a badass and probably the most beautiful GC rider to watch when the road turns up. I've used that Alp d'Huez stage 20 ride last year many times as trainer motivation when I'm riding in the basement.
I didn't pick Kittel for fantasy, Sagan was the clear choice there in my book. He got massive points last year, and I really think he's on form to be far more successful this year. That said, I do pick Kittel to win today's stage as a prediction.
So I went with the same 1-2 punch as last year with Froome and Quintana while having DMartin and Kelderman for other good GC/stage finishes.
My sprinter is Coquard (as last year....always have faith in him). The rest is mainly albasini for stages and some riders for breakaways. I think the team is fairly balanced despite the high cost of the 2 main GC guys. If they end up 1-2 they make up their cost, otherwise the team doesn't work at all.
My gf went with a different approach....all in Froome/Quintana/Sagan and then fillers plus Coppel and Fuglsang. Let's see how se does. Her idea was to have the big3 plus Mathews or Greipel but the limitation on the roles (and requiring another all rounder and another climber that could at best cost only 8pts) ruined her plan. Nevertheless, if Sagan does his usual antics and the other 2 finish in the podium and have 1 or 2 stages she could be well set for a reasonable finish.
Apparently Gesink withdrew like a week and a half ago. I assumed they'd take guys that have withdrawn off the damn selection list.
So much for my team, and missed a small 4pt pick that also withdrew. So...guess I get to start with 6. Lame. Probably should have combed the start lists a little more thoroughly, the day before, but I'm still pissed. Why would you list a guy that has withdrawn from the race as a pickable candidate?!
Apparently Gesink withdrew like a week and a half ago. I assumed they'd take guys that have withdrawn off the damn selection list.
So much for my team, and missed a small 4pt pick that also withdrew. So...guess I get to start with 6. Lame. Probably should have combed the start lists a little more thoroughly, the day before, but I'm still pissed. Why would you list a guy that has withdrawn from the race as a pickable candidate?!
Yeah Gesink crashed on his head in the tour de suisse and has a concussion. This was known for quite a while though :x
Cavendish wins! Never would have guessed that. I am pretty big fan of his but really thought his time was gone now with Kittel and Greipel being so good. Sagan also looked super strong there.
Yea Sagan looked great there! Kittel looked a little worn by the end but I don't know if it was the lack of good positioning coming into the last straight or the overall great positioning by Cavendish.
On July 03 2016 01:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I hope Contador is ok to continue. He fell pretty darn hard on that concrete curb. Lost a lot of skin at least.
Yeah, his shoulder/back looked pretty gross from it, but it looks like it is mostly skin given he could get back up and keep with the pace (phew).
On July 03 2016 00:42 Saechiis wrote: Damn I missed the boat on this, no fantasy tour for me to obsess over, rip.
I even tried to keep the thread plenty active in order to let people view it in the sidebar before the race started
On July 03 2016 00:37 TzaTzers wrote: Yea Sagan looked great there! Kittel looked a little worn by the end but I don't know if it was the lack of good positioning coming into the last straight or the overall great positioning by Cavendish.
It was unfortunate positioning by Sagan, since he had to make his way from like 8-9th place into first without having a wheel to ride behind, and in the process he made life very easy for Cavendish. Hard for me to read too much into the sprint besides Kittel and Sagan being in superb form.
(video courtesy of Eurosport and steephill.tv doing their own online coverage.
On July 02 2016 23:54 L_Master wrote: Fuck me.
Apparently Gesink withdrew like a week and a half ago. I assumed they'd take guys that have withdrawn off the damn selection list.
So much for my team, and missed a small 4pt pick that also withdrew. So...guess I get to start with 6. Lame. Probably should have combed the start lists a little more thoroughly, the day before, but I'm still pissed. Why would you list a guy that has withdrawn from the race as a pickable candidate?!
That sucks What they do is if you picked someone and then they aren't on the roster or get removed, you're not able to find them in the list and pick them again, however if you have them chosen, they remain there. Ideally, the most logical way to do it in my eyes is that it'd deselect your previous rider. I had that Movistar rider myself.
Glad that Contador (seems to have) got through that crash without structural damage. For sure the road rash will be annoying and a bit disruptive, but a crash like that could have easily ended his Tour. Word on the street and from him seems to be he doesn't think that will be the case.
That crash in the final few hundred meters was downright scary. They really ought to do something about fans being able to lean in, as well as the barrier feet being clippable by pedals. Easily could have been another crash like the awful one early last year that took out Spartacus and others before the Mur de Huy.
Major kudos to Cav. I thought he had largely slipped from the form needed to contest sprints with the top big boys, but he certainly threw that notion out the door. Not really a Cav fan (not an anti fan either) but that was a nice one to see him win and get the opportunity to wear yellow. A man that has 27 wins deserves that at least once in my book.
Kittel didn't look bad, but was out way to early compared to Cav who just sat and slipstreamed and could get a nice jump.
Sagan also looked very good to be up there with those guys, better timing and he might have had a chance at a victory. Going to be shocked if Sagan doesn't get a win or two this year.
For anyone interested that rides bikes and feels inspired watching the best do their thing, I'd challenge everyone to get out and do an epic ride in the hills (or on the flats if you have no hills) and post them up. I'll say the challenge opens on the 15th and closes on the 19th.
There will be three categories for:
1) Longest Duration 2) Most Elevation Gain 3) Highest VAM on a climb greater than 300m in elevation change (A 4-6 min climb will be accepted in lieu of a 300m+ climb, but with a 10% reduction to account for the shorter duration)
So even if you don't have hours of time you can take a stab at number 3. Go out, grab your phone or GPS, and post em up to strava. Small prizes TBA will be associated with each category.
Stage 2 so hard to guess who will win. I guess Sagan is main candidate but other than that it could be anything from GC riders like Daniel Martin and Kelderman to sprinters like Kristoff and Hagen
On July 03 2016 08:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Stage 2 so hard to guess who will win. I guess Sagan is main candidate but other than that it could be anything from GC riders like Daniel Martin and Kelderman to sprinters like Kristoff and Hagen
Yeah, Sagan definitely has a lot of motivation to do well, as if Sagan gets first he will have the yellow jersey as long as Cav is out of top 3 (there's zero chance that Cavendish can to that uphill and still have legs for a sprint).
This is definitely one of those Valverde, Purito, Van Avermaet, Dan Martin, Sagan stages. I would also be very happy if Kristoff and Hagen did well as I have them in my fantasy. That said, it's not a Mur de Huy type of climb, with the last 2km averaging like 5%, so like you said, might be open to some of the non-pure sprinters.
I think it'll be another one of those stages where I'll come to watch the last 20-30 minutes.
For anyone interested that rides bikes and feels inspired watching the best do their thing, I'd challenge everyone to get out and do an epic ride in the hills (or on the flats if you have no hills) and post them up. I'll say the challenge opens on the 15th and closes on the 19th.
There will be three categories for:
1) Longest Duration 2) Most Elevation Gain 3) Highest VAM on a climb greater than 300m in elevation change (A 4-6 min climb will be accepted in lieu of a 300m+ climb, but with a 10% reduction to account for the shorter duration)
So even if you don't have hours of time you can take a stab at number 3. Go out, grab your phone or GPS, and post em up to strava. Small prizes TBA will be associated with each category.
Cool, thanks for doing this. I've never used Strava, I don't need data/signal when I'm cycling in the mountains, do I? As those data fees would destroy me, even though I have unlimited within city limits (I'm wanting to use an Android phone).
I spent like 2 hours today getting dirty and fixing my front derailleur, I can finally use the big ring again. So now that all my gear is ready, I think I should have the longest duration category in the bag.
For anyone interested that rides bikes and feels inspired watching the best do their thing, I'd challenge everyone to get out and do an epic ride in the hills (or on the flats if you have no hills) and post them up. I'll say the challenge opens on the 15th and closes on the 19th.
There will be three categories for:
1) Longest Duration 2) Most Elevation Gain 3) Highest VAM on a climb greater than 300m in elevation change (A 4-6 min climb will be accepted in lieu of a 300m+ climb, but with a 10% reduction to account for the shorter duration)
So even if you don't have hours of time you can take a stab at number 3. Go out, grab your phone or GPS, and post em up to strava. Small prizes TBA will be associated with each category.
Cool, thanks for doing this. I've never used Strava, I don't need data/signal when I'm cycling in the mountains, do I? As those data fees would destroy me, even though I have unlimited within city limits (I'm wanting to use an Android phone).
I spent like 2 hours today getting dirty and fixing my front derailleur, I can finally use the big ring again. So now that all my gear is ready, I think I should have the longest duration category in the bag.
Yea, I don't have plans to challenge 10 hours. Watch someone go nuts and pop a 24 hour ride on us or something :p
As for strava, it doesn't use any data while cycling as far as I know because I can record the ride with strava with mobile data and wireless turned off (locations services needs to be on) and then upload the data when I have a connection. I'm surprised you haven't used it since you ride a decent amount, it's great for tracking everything you do, even if you're not interested in being competitive or doing deep analysis.
On July 03 2016 08:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Stage 2 so hard to guess who will win. I guess Sagan is main candidate but other than that it could be anything from GC riders like Daniel Martin and Kelderman to sprinters like Kristoff and Hagen
Yeah, Sagan definitely has a lot of motivation to do well, as if Sagan gets first he will have the yellow jersey as long as Cav is out of top 3 (there's zero chance that Cavendish can to that uphill and still have legs for a sprint).
This is definitely one of those Valverde, Purito, Van Avermaet, Dan Martin, Sagan stages. I would also be very happy if Kristoff and Hagen did well as I have them in my fantasy. That said, it's not a Mur de Huy type of climb, with the last 2km averaging like 5%, so like you said, might be open to some of the non-pure sprinters.
I think it'll be another one of those stages where I'll come to watch the last 20-30 minutes.
I'm a junkie, so I'll probably watch most of the 4 hours like I usually do for the tour. I almost always watch at least the last hour. Oftentimes it's tranquil till for most of the last hour even but I enjoy seeing what's been unfolding.
Dan Martin are Sagan going 1-2 would be very nice. Need dem points!
For anyone interested that rides bikes and feels inspired watching the best do their thing, I'd challenge everyone to get out and do an epic ride in the hills (or on the flats if you have no hills) and post them up. I'll say the challenge opens on the 15th and closes on the 19th.
There will be three categories for:
1) Longest Duration 2) Most Elevation Gain 3) Highest VAM on a climb greater than 300m in elevation change (A 4-6 min climb will be accepted in lieu of a 300m+ climb, but with a 10% reduction to account for the shorter duration)
So even if you don't have hours of time you can take a stab at number 3. Go out, grab your phone or GPS, and post em up to strava. Small prizes TBA will be associated with each category.
Cool, thanks for doing this. I've never used Strava, I don't need data/signal when I'm cycling in the mountains, do I? As those data fees would destroy me, even though I have unlimited within city limits (I'm wanting to use an Android phone).
I spent like 2 hours today getting dirty and fixing my front derailleur, I can finally use the big ring again. So now that all my gear is ready, I think I should have the longest duration category in the bag.
Yea, I don't have plans to challenge 10 hours. Watch someone go nuts and pop a 24 hour ride on us or something :p
As for strava, it doesn't use any data while cycling as far as I know because I can record the ride with strava with mobile data and wireless turned off (locations services needs to be on) and then upload the data when I have a connection. I'm surprised you haven't used it since you ride a decent amount, it's great for tracking everything you do, even if you're not interested in being competitive or doing deep analysis.
Thanks for the info, I suppose I'll see how I like it when using it for this event.
I think I've mentioned it in the past, but initially I got into cycling because when I wanted to go for a cigarette break and I didn't want my parents to know, it was an easy out, and getting a bit of exercise too was a nice mix. Then it became something I'd do for peace, nothing quite like doing a loop around this lake in the city, without a single artificial light within 1km of you at any time and going through the forest, hearing crickets, owls, rustling of leaves at 2am in the morning. I really should record of it sometime, I'm not sure how well the atmosphere would transfer to video, but it's a very meditating experience for me.
Then I think it was near the end of my high school when my social studies teacher would always rant about how people get cars to save time, but are you really saving time by having to work to pay for the car/insurance/gas? As a high school or university student, working part time, that's like 30-50% of your salary no problem, my little brother recently purchased a car and almost all his money goes towards it. So that kind of stuck with, and then when I realized I could travel anywhere in the city on a bike than public transit, I fell in love (not to mention saving $6 on a roundtrip commute adds up when you try to budget $400-$500 a month).
So I suppose I've always been about the practical aspects, and not that the Froome mentality of looking at your cadence and power meter is bad, it's too robotic for my liking. I like using my sensory feedback, and I don't get discouraged if I go too hard on some climb and my legs feel like jello for the next 10-20km. And since air resistance accounts for like 70-80% of your losses when exerting 300W, and since velocity is proportional to roughly power cubed (w.r.t. air resistance), I have never felt the need to go buy some expensive bicycle, or fancy gear that will let me shave off 1-2 minutes off of an hour ride... Since at the end of the day, I'm pushing myself equally hard regardless of how quickly I'm going. Anyway, that's my perspective on a lot of it (which I know is different from yours), and my justification for not worrying about the numbers too much, all too often people overcomplicate cycling, when they'd improve much more if they just made sure to go out. That's the mistake I made in the past with going to the gym, trying to make myself some fancy regimen and diet, and it just being too difficult to stick to. Maybe once I get to the point of being consistent enough in going out to do it I'd change my mentality, but currently I still go through phases where I get motivated and cycle a lot, and then phases where I get interested in something else and cycling goes to the backburner.
On July 03 2016 08:23 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Stage 2 so hard to guess who will win. I guess Sagan is main candidate but other than that it could be anything from GC riders like Daniel Martin and Kelderman to sprinters like Kristoff and Hagen
Yeah, Sagan definitely has a lot of motivation to do well, as if Sagan gets first he will have the yellow jersey as long as Cav is out of top 3 (there's zero chance that Cavendish can to that uphill and still have legs for a sprint).
This is definitely one of those Valverde, Purito, Van Avermaet, Dan Martin, Sagan stages. I would also be very happy if Kristoff and Hagen did well as I have them in my fantasy. That said, it's not a Mur de Huy type of climb, with the last 2km averaging like 5%, so like you said, might be open to some of the non-pure sprinters.
I think it'll be another one of those stages where I'll come to watch the last 20-30 minutes.
I'm a junkie, so I'll probably watch most of the 4 hours like I usually do for the tour. I almost always watch at least the last hour. Oftentimes it's tranquil till for most of the last hour even but I enjoy seeing what's been unfolding.
Dan Martin are Sagan going 1-2 would be very nice. Need dem points!
Well you must be very diligent in keeping a good sleeping schedule then. It's can be very difficult for me to wake up at 5am or whatever it is haha. I think we're in the same time zone too, but once the mountain stages roll around, I usually watch 2-3 hours. It's just a lot of time to invest, though if I wake up early, I'll leave it open on my computer and just listen to the audio while doing something else.
Yeah, Dan Martin should do well, seems like he was a very popular choice. I suppose the fact that he's a very likeable guy and on-form is a good combination. And man, I was really considering picking Sagan, but I just couldn't bring myself to it, even though he's by far my favorite rider. Like I won on the back of him last year, but the choice here would have been 20 on Sagan and 4 on a no-name who will get like 200 points, versus... Boasson Hagen + Kristoff, which is only 18 points, and then having 6 more points to pick a GC/climber. Last year Sagan had 1967 points, which I considered a very good scenario if he could repeat, so those 24 points would get me 2200 points. Versus Boasson Hagen + Kristoff, which seeing their form, I think 700 each is realistic, and 6 extra points is like the difference between Pinot/Aru or Rolland kind of level, which is an easy 500 points extra imo.
So yeah, I dunno, I didn't want to take the risk on one rider like that (a fuckin' legend nonetheless), but lets see how it works out!
On July 03 2016 19:18 Skynx wrote: I have a feeling its gona be a Van Avermaat day
I don't think so. 41km, 5'18''. One of the 4 men have a good chance to win the stage now. Usually, a small group loses 1min/10km against a chasing peloton.
We'll see but I've the feeling the winner will be unexpected.
ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE IT , man I'm always pumped when a Break away has a chance to win , love those more then sprints BY FAR , THIS IS SPARTA kind of feeling when they achieve it , few vs many !!!!!
Crazy how they time it so close, seeing the clock at 2:30 seconds with 10km to go made it seem completely hopeless for the peloton to me. Funny that Sagan didn't even know he won, thinking there was two riders still ahead. Alaphilippe also extremely mad hitting his handlebars, but damn, he's looking so good, I definitely didn't think he could do that well. I know he won Tour of California and whatnot, but it was against a much weaker group, seeing him here beat out the likes of Valverde, Dan Martin, and Van Avermaet is super impressive.
On the flip side of things, Contador with another crash Losing 48 seconds today. Even worse though for Porte with a puncture losing 1:45, it's a tough one to come back from, not great prospects having one of them on your team (looks like 3 of us have Contador, and 2 have Porte).
It's going to be interesting times now, Tinkoff isn't a team that will chase breakaways, though it might work in their favor, as while Sagan is okay not keeping the yellow jersey, the sprinter teams will definitely be chasing the breakaways, and Sagan should definitely be able to hold the yellow jersey for at least the next two days.
Sagan made that look incredibly easy. Just casually let Alaphillpe go in front and then shot by him. Need to look at the stages a little more...but I think this has the potential to be an absolutely amazing tour from Sagan.
Contador apparently crashing again on his same shoulder as yesterday and losing more time. Definitely not ideal, hope he heals up.
Biggest news of the day though is Porte. Jesus Christ is that guy unlucky as all hell. He's like a teammate of mine who for the past 4 years has targeted the Tour of the Gila and every year on stage 1 he's had some sort of mechanical and been out of it immediately. Same with Porte every grand tour. Giro...gets a flat with 12km to go when the chase is ON. Loses well over a minute + penalty from wheel change issue. Then here at the tour, second day, and pops a flat at the absolute most inopportune time right when the race is full gas at 4km with a climb coming up. Over 1:30 in losses.
Sadly, there is no answer for that. It's bullshit any attempt you take. Porte didn't do anything wrong and lost 1:30. But you obviously can't give him a free 1:30 either, because he might well have lost some seconds near the end if he wouldn't have had the flat. Badly timed mechanicals may be part of the sport, but that doesn't make them any less stupid.
On the plus side, while his chances to win are definitely over (unless he is on some totally unexpected level) he could still easily get a stage win or two and/or contend for a podium position. We'll see how it goes, but I had Richie pegged to finish third or fourth behind Quintana/Froome depending on how Contador goes, and that certainly is still in play especially with Contador having lost time today and being banged up.
For the same reasons I'm not too worried for him and fantasy. As mentioned I saw Richie as a top 5 guy with a good shot at podium and maybe a stage win...and I don't think his bad luck will have a major impact on that; so from a fantasy perspective I'm not unhappy at all. Just feel for the guy, this is like 2 or 3 times in a row now.
In terms of watching it live, I usually go on one of the sites here here, and cycle a few of the streams until I find something stable.
To watch live there are usually Eurosport links posted on steephill. Otherwise you can just watch the last 5-20km from the recap on steephill (most of the time this is all that is interesting to view anyway) shortly after the stage finishes.
Or if you have NBC you can just do what I do which is DVR it, then start watching it at 8 or whenever I happen to wake up.
I guess Contador is doomed (not as strong as before overall and losing 48sec like this is very rough), that's pity to lose le tour like this but I'm not that disappointed,, it's not like I don't like the guy (in fact, I do like him) but his fans are the most annoying ever. With the trial bike, it will be hard for Quintana to gain enough time in mountains, moreover, he lacks of panach (the same goes for Porte who struggles in 3 weeks race anyway) if you compare to old big champions like Andy Schleck, with the addition of the Team sky overall strenght, I fear it will be a bit boring this year... Maybe not as bad as in 2012 because this year Quintana has been really strong but still. I hope he will prove me I'm wrong, I don't care if him or Froome win, I just want a good race.
Well this stage was the slowest and most uneventful I've seen in quite some time. I suppose the close finish made it kind of neat.
Next stage should be more or less the same, minus a potentially slightly easier time for breakaways as there's a 27km very slight downhill to the end of the stage. But it's roughly a -0.4% average gradient, which is too small. Really trying to find something to throw the breakaway a bone, but it's really not much.
Tom Dumoulin commented on the stage length. He said nobody gets satisfaction from these >200 km stages in a grand tour. Would be much more exciting if stages were shorter. He expects tomorrow to be just as slow.
On July 05 2016 07:43 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Tom Dumoulin commented on the stage length. He said nobody gets satisfaction from these >200 km stages in a grand tour. Would be much more exciting if stages were shorter. He expects tomorrow to be just as slow.
I absolutely don't agree. The entire point of a Grand Tour is to travel an insane amount of distance, to have a cycling achievement, and tour the entire country. With Degenkolb's perspective, you might as well make all sprint stages 50km and make every other stage a mountain finish.
All TdF between 1911 and 1929 were 5000km+, and this was back when average speeds were like 24-28km/hr.
Then until 1970 all TdF were 4000km+, in which the average speed climbed from 29km/hr to 37km/hr.
Since year 2000, the average TdF length was 3500km (compared to 3800km~ between 1970 and 2000), and this years tour is 3519km, and the average speed is at a hair above 40km/hr, compared to the peak of 41km/hr~ during the early 2000s doping era.
That works out to roughly 4 hours and 10 minutes a stage on average (though Champs Elysees and TT's are obviously shorter), but I am personally under the impression that a 4:30-6:30 stages are good lengths. When I go on a difficult hike it's around that length, when I go on any full day trip, it's around that length that I'm putting in an effort daily.
Make other races shorter sure, but TdF has always been an endurance touring race, and I'd like it to stay that way. I think there are plenty of one-day races in the UCI circuit for those that want to see action throughout.
Contador looks like a lost cause at this point, having already lost 1:21 simply due to biking slowly and injuries. Hard to see how he can make that time up, plus gain more time to challenge for the lead, given that at this point the favorites are hardly trying.
Quintana and Bardet I still have good feelings about, and Dan Martin... I think he was a good choice still, quite a few here have Alaphilippe, but today he said that it was very difficult to keep up, so I imagine he will start getting dropped while Dan Martin will stay there.
Kristoff has been super disappointing to me, he has the biggest leadout train, they always take to the front, and then he just gets passed by someone so casually. As fro my other Norwegian Boasson Hagen, he's too good of a rider to be a lead out man for Cavendish. Hopefully Cav drops out soon to train for the olympics, and Boasson Hagen will be able to chase those stage wins.
Though I still see ways to win, other people have in my eyes completely useless picks like Ten Dam, Nibali, Dumoulin... Eric chose two riders not even in the race, etc. But ughhhh, I should've listened to my heart and gotten Barguil/Alaphilippe instead of Contador, and Sagan instead of Kristoff.
edit: Anyway, one more sprint stage, and then we will have three more proper mountain stages in a row. Stage 7 to Stage 9 will all really suck for anyone not in top shape.
Pretty happy with my 3rd place. And Dumoulin is not useless, he'll win 2 time trials and win a mountain stage somewhere. I hope . Though probably Barguil would be a better choice in hindsight, he's looking really strong and Dumoulin looked weak today.
On July 07 2016 03:56 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Pretty happy with my 3rd place. And Dumoulin is not useless, he'll win 2 time trials and win a mountain stage somewhere. I hope . Though probably Barguil would be a better choice in hindsight, he's looking really strong and Dumoulin looked weak today.
We will see, I don't think the ITT's favor him, and I think he's tired from the Giro. Yeah, I would have picked Barguil if it wasn't for his poor performance on the TT of the second last stage of the Tour de Suisse.
Now I'll be able to show off my Slovakia pride. Their sizing is so weird, so hopefully an XXL is a good size, says for 173-183cm and 77-85kg, and I'm 176cm and 80kg, but pretty top heavy, so I hope my arms and shoulders fit okay, and that it's not super loose at my waist.
I did a lot of research on this BelarusVelo company, and they do make very good quality chinese knockoffs, so I vouch for them if you're looking to buy a cycling kit at 25% of the cost of elsewhere lol. $50 US or $65 CAD ~ with free shipping is solid, I just hope sizing will work out.
On July 07 2016 03:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: Not enjoying this fantasy so far.
Contador looks like a lost cause at this point, having already lost 1:21 simply due to biking slowly and injuries. Hard to see how he can make that time up, plus gain more time to challenge for the lead, given that at this point the favorites are hardly trying.
Quintana and Bardet I still have good feelings about, and Dan Martin... I think he was a good choice still, quite a few here have Alaphilippe, but today he said that it was very difficult to keep up, so I imagine he will start getting dropped while Dan Martin will stay there.
Kristoff has been super disappointing to me, he has the biggest leadout train, they always take to the front, and then he just gets passed by someone so casually. As fro my other Norwegian Boasson Hagen, he's too good of a rider to be a lead out man for Cavendish. Hopefully Cav drops out soon to train for the olympics, and Boasson Hagen will be able to chase those stage wins.
Though I still see ways to win, other people have in my eyes completely useless picks like Ten Dam, Nibali, Dumoulin... Eric chose two riders not even in the race, etc. But ughhhh, I should've listened to my heart and gotten Barguil/Alaphilippe instead of Contador, and Sagan instead of Kristoff.
edit: Anyway, one more sprint stage, and then we will have three more proper mountain stages in a row. Stage 7 to Stage 9 will all really suck for anyone not in top shape.
Yea, I was absolutely going with Sagan this year. He's guaranteed for low-mid 1k pts range no matter what, and then with the way he has been riding all season his form is easily the best I've ever seen it. I just couldn't see not picking him, even with a higher cost. I'd probably have considered him seriously even at 30 pts.
Ten Dam is probably a useless pick. Riding more for himself on Lotto is one thing, but being here to work for Barguil and/or Doumalin he is just on domestique duties, and while a good rider he isn't a super domestique guy like a Geraint Thomas that might finish okay because he is strong enough to ride the front up climbs and still finish forward.
Doumalin we will have to see. His stated goal is the Olympics ITT. If he is rounding into form for that he could easily go well at these TT's. Doubtful he will do much besides that however, but I could see him being good for 300-700 pts.
Nibali, I forget what his cost was, but he is here to work for Aru + is coming off the Giro and we already know that any rider coming off the Giro isn't going to be worth much. Possibly will go stage hunting and have some good finishes, but I don't see him finishing top 10 or getting 1000+ pts.
Unless something happens to both Froome and Quintana, Contador is not going to be a factor to win. Still very possibly he could get stage wins and finish on the podium. That's probably good for somewhere 1-1.5k pts. This assuming his injuries aren't actually significantly more serious than he is letting on to, in which case it might be a bad situation.
I have no idea why you picked Kristoff to be honest. Where did you expect him to succeed? He's obviously no match for Kittel/Griepel (and this surprisingly resurgent Cav) on the flat sprints, but has no where near the strength of a guy like Sagan. Of all your picks that's the one I don't understand.
Very interesting the peleton gave that kind of a gap to Avermaet. He's not going to win, but he can hold that for a long time. Good racing though, he rode strong especially for medium length climbs of decent steepness. Hats off for the victory.
Sucks for Contador. Any possible overall hope is definitely gone unless Quintana and Froome both suffer serious mishaps. Question also looms large of whether he will be okay in the near term future, or does he have more significant injuries than what he is letting on.
I don't follow sprinters that much, and don't judge my reasons too hard but:
1) He was ranked number 1 here - http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/03/news/road/power-rankings-classics-sprinters_396558 2) His 2016 results also looked good, Tour of Oman, 1st two stages, 1st Eschborn-Frankfurt City Loop, one stage in Tour of Cali, 3 stages in Tour of Qatar, 1 stage in Three Days of De Panne, and 2nd 4th and 6th in in 3 big classics. 3) He was also 10 points, and I weighed their this years achievements, and his looked relatively on par to me at first glance with Greipel, not as good as Kittel obviously, but 6 points cheaper.... And Cavendish hasn't done anything this year.
So yeah, I should've looked into that a bit deeper I guess.
I mean right now it's not like he's destroying my team, he still has 182 points compared to say Greipel's 312 and Kittel's 500 (since he's cheaper)... Also the 6th best sprinter if you don't include Van Avermaet since he got 50 points for today. Contador will likely be the end of me, and hoping Boasson Hagen does work after his Dauphine performance, I thought he was a really value pick.
On July 07 2016 05:18 L_Master wrote: Very interesting the peleton gave that kind of a gap to Avermaet. He's not going to win, but he can hold that for a long time. Good racing though, he rode strong especially for medium length climbs of decent steepness. Hats off for the victory.
Sucks for Contador. Any possible overall hope is definitely gone unless Quintana and Froome both suffer serious mishaps. Question also looms large of whether he will be okay in the near term future, or does he have more significant injuries than what he is letting on.
Yeah, I guess that's kind of what happens when the team that has the yellow jersey has no interest whatsoever to keep it, and they have a man in the breakaway, and their main man is injured and slow pace benefits him.
Really depends on how eager Van Avermaet is to keep the jersey, if he pushes like that one year when Voeckler got the jersey are kept it for a long time, then I think he'd likely lose it on Stage 9, but if he realizes that the effort is doomed and he's better off conserving energy, he can easily lose 5-15 minutes on stage 7.
On July 07 2016 03:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: Not enjoying this fantasy so far.
Contador looks like a lost cause at this point, having already lost 1:21 simply due to biking slowly and injuries. Hard to see how he can make that time up, plus gain more time to challenge for the lead, given that at this point the favorites are hardly trying.
Quintana and Bardet I still have good feelings about, and Dan Martin... I think he was a good choice still, quite a few here have Alaphilippe, but today he said that it was very difficult to keep up, so I imagine he will start getting dropped while Dan Martin will stay there.
Kristoff has been super disappointing to me, he has the biggest leadout train, they always take to the front, and then he just gets passed by someone so casually. As fro my other Norwegian Boasson Hagen, he's too good of a rider to be a lead out man for Cavendish. Hopefully Cav drops out soon to train for the olympics, and Boasson Hagen will be able to chase those stage wins.
Though I still see ways to win, other people have in my eyes completely useless picks like Ten Dam, Nibali, Dumoulin... Eric chose two riders not even in the race, etc. But ughhhh, I should've listened to my heart and gotten Barguil/Alaphilippe instead of Contador, and Sagan instead of Kristoff.
edit: Anyway, one more sprint stage, and then we will have three more proper mountain stages in a row. Stage 7 to Stage 9 will all really suck for anyone not in top shape.
Yea, I was absolutely going with Sagan this year. He's guaranteed for low-mid 1k pts range no matter what, and then with the way he has been riding all season his form is easily the best I've ever seen it. I just couldn't see not picking him, even with a higher cost. I'd probably have considered him seriously even at 30 pts.
Ten Dam is probably a useless pick. Riding more for himself on Lotto is one thing, but being here to work for Barguil and/or Doumalin he is just on domestique duties, and while a good rider he isn't a super domestique guy like a Geraint Thomas that might finish okay because he is strong enough to ride the front up climbs and still finish forward.
Doumalin we will have to see. His stated goal is the Olympics ITT. If he is rounding into form for that he could easily go well at these TT's. Doubtful he will do much besides that however, but I could see him being good for 300-700 pts.
Nibali, I forget what his cost was, but he is here to work for Aru + is coming off the Giro and we already know that any rider coming off the Giro isn't going to be worth much. Possibly will go stage hunting and have some good finishes, but I don't see him finishing top 10 or getting 1000+ pts.
Unless something happens to both Froome and Quintana, Contador is not going to be a factor to win. Still very possibly he could get stage wins and finish on the podium. That's probably good for somewhere 1-1.5k pts. This assuming his injuries aren't actually significantly more serious than he is letting on to, in which case it might be a bad situation.
I have no idea why you picked Kristoff to be honest. Where did you expect him to succeed? He's obviously no match for Kittel/Griepel (and this surprisingly resurgent Cav) on the flat sprints, but has no where near the strength of a guy like Sagan. Of all your picks that's the one I don't understand.
I hear people talking down my team =P
But really, I didn't even know Nibali had won the Giro when I picked him, and yeah, I realize he's probably going to be the lowest value:point cost rider in maybe the whole race in light of that. Oh well.
And Ten Dam was inches away from being Van Avermaet, but I thought I might be biased toward BMC riders since I've actually been watching them in the US, and so just randomly picked someone else.
On July 07 2016 05:29 FiWiFaKi wrote: I don't follow sprinters that much, and don't judge my reasons too hard but:
1) He was ranked number 1 here - http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/03/news/road/power-rankings-classics-sprinters_396558 2) His 2016 results also looked good, Tour of Oman, 1st two stages, 1st Eschborn-Frankfurt City Loop, one stage in Tour of Cali, 3 stages in Tour of Qatar, 1 stage in Three Days of De Panne, and 2nd 4th and 6th in in 3 big classics. 3) He was also 10 points, and I weighed their this years achievements, and his looked relatively on par to me at first glance with Greipel, not as good as Kittel obviously, but 6 points cheaper.... And Cavendish hasn't done anything this year.
So yeah, I should've looked into that a bit deeper I guess.
I mean right now it's not like he's destroying my team, he still has 182 points compared to say Greipel's 312 and Kittel's 500 (since he's cheaper)... Also the 6th best sprinter if you don't include Van Avermaet since he got 50 points for today. Contador will likely be the end of me, and hoping Boasson Hagen does work after his Dauphine performance, I thought he was a really value pick.
That rank is from March, sure Kristoff won some at the start of the season and last season he got Flanders and a lot of wins, but in the last few months he has been really lacking, he got some wins but overall he hasn't impressed. If he was on top of his game he would have a chance while not being expensive, but since you said you don't follow sprinters that much it's a more than understandable 'mistake'
I feel for that Contador pick, but I still believe he's going to recover and make a strong second half, possibly getting 1 or 2 stages and placing top5. Podium will be hard because I expect him to lose a little more time this weekend but the guy is though and has shown he can bounce back from setbacks.
Boassen Hagen probably go into some breaks on medium-mountain stages where Cavendish has no chance, him and Cummings have what it takes to contest at least a stage win so you can still get some value from him as well.
On July 07 2016 05:29 FiWiFaKi wrote: I don't follow sprinters that much, and don't judge my reasons too hard but:
1) He was ranked number 1 here - http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/03/news/road/power-rankings-classics-sprinters_396558 2) His 2016 results also looked good, Tour of Oman, 1st two stages, 1st Eschborn-Frankfurt City Loop, one stage in Tour of Cali, 3 stages in Tour of Qatar, 1 stage in Three Days of De Panne, and 2nd 4th and 6th in in 3 big classics. 3) He was also 10 points, and I weighed their this years achievements, and his looked relatively on par to me at first glance with Greipel, not as good as Kittel obviously, but 6 points cheaper.... And Cavendish hasn't done anything this year.
So yeah, I should've looked into that a bit deeper I guess.
I mean right now it's not like he's destroying my team, he still has 182 points compared to say Greipel's 312 and Kittel's 500 (since he's cheaper)... Also the 6th best sprinter if you don't include Van Avermaet since he got 50 points for today. Contador will likely be the end of me, and hoping Boasson Hagen does work after his Dauphine performance, I thought he was a really value pick.
That rank is from March, sure Kristoff won some at the start of the season and last season he got Flanders and a lot of wins, but in the last few months he has been really lacking, he got some wins but overall he hasn't impressed. If he was on top of his game he would have a chance while not being expensive, but since you said you don't follow sprinters that much it's a more than understandable 'mistake'
I feel for that Contador pick, but I still believe he's going to recover and make a strong second half, possibly getting 1 or 2 stages and placing top5. Podium will be hard because I expect him to lose a little more time this weekend but the guy is though and has shown he can bounce back from setbacks.
Boassen Hagen probably go into some breaks on medium-mountain stages where Cavendish has no chance, him and Cummings have what it takes to contest at least a stage win so you can still get some value from him as well.
I knew it was from March, I just didn't think that'd he would fall that far in four months, well opps.
What surprised me is that like nobody picked Aru. I think he's incredibly strong, and for 16 points a very good deal. I think he would have easily been my 3rd GC guy, but I just couldn't find a GC guy that I'd like for 12 points. I told myself Contador and Quintana are going to be there, thinking that both of them would get top 4 (the TT in the Dauphine from Contador was very impressive), and I had 28 points left to get one all rounder and one climber. In the end I went with Pinot and Dan Martin, which I think were decent choices. I was just set on getting more GC guys rather than sprinters.
It was also tough for me to decide whether I want to spend more points on the unclassified riders (I would have gone with Cummings, De Gendt, and Gallopin back then, which seem like solid choices thus far), but it's fairly hit or miss if they choose to do stuff, so in the end I decided to spend those 8 points elsewhere.
And I'm glad you're hopeful about Contador, but when you're getting dropped from a group that still has some 20+ people in it, you still need some massive recovery. If you're getting dropped when there's 20-25 riders in the peloton, you're going to lose 2-3 minutes on the mountain stages. And getting like 5-8 placings where you finish 10th or something, you really don't get that many points. Oh well, we'll see.
On July 07 2016 07:16 Skynx wrote: Man 5'10 is a huge gap. Any chance BMC carry him all the way?
It'll never happen. If Sky or Movistar were worried, they could ride at full pace on Stage 8, 15, 18, 19, or 20, and take out 10 minutes out of him on any of those days. Though realistically, the pace will be pretty average on the mountain stages, and so if Avermaet gives it all, he will be able to keep up until the last 20-40km, and then lose 2-4 minutes on each of the upcoming mountain stages.
People like Sagan and Avermaet are nowhere close to the level of GC guys in terms of climbing ability.
On July 07 2016 07:16 Skynx wrote: Man 5'10 is a huge gap. Any chance BMC carry him all the way?
No. I'm afraid there is zero chance of that. If he had 30 minutes...there would be the slimmest of chance. 60 minutes might be a realistic 50/50 chance.
Avermaet is a strong rider, there is no doubt about that, but his specialty is not alpine climbing. He is a fantastic reduced peleton sprinter, and great at short climbs. High alpine climbs are a different beast though. One of the biggest problems is that he is a larger rider at like 72kg or something, which punishes him extra for making accelerations. So when the climbers start doing attack, tempo, attack, tempo it costs Avermaet a ton to follow those attacks. Much more so than the good climbers (takes more power to accelerate a heavier mass). This means eventually on one of the attacks he blows up and can't follow, and starts losing massive time as the other main GC guys work together.
Equally an issue, is that he just doesn't have the sustained watts to handle multiple hard climbs, especially when they get steep. If everything was 5%, Avermaet might be able to hold on for a while. But for bigger, punchier climbers long + steep is a death combo. It's just too much weight to drag up the steep climbs and drafting gets more or less to nothing above 10% gradients. If Sky/Movistar start setting the pace at 6-6.5 w/kg starting early in mountain days it's going to mean Avermaet is digging way, way, into the red on every climb. He might survive one like that, but then he'd crack massively on the second or third climb, and with the whole team of Sky/Movistar still in tact he could easily lose 5-15+ minutes in a single day.
Additionally, I doubt Avermaet has done any serious altitude training like the main GC guys, which means that he will suffer extra on the big, high mountains.
On July 07 2016 07:16 Skynx wrote: Man 5'10 is a huge gap. Any chance BMC carry him all the way?
It'll never happen. If Sky or Movistar were worried, they could ride at full pace on Stage 8, 15, 18, 19, or 20, and take out 10 minutes out of him on any of those days. Though realistically, the pace will be pretty average on the mountain stages, and so if Avermaet gives it all, he will be able to keep up until the last 20-40km, and then lose 2-4 minutes on each of the upcoming mountain stages.
People like Sagan and Avermaet are nowhere close to the level of GC guys in terms of climbing ability.
I won't really argue, but Sagan is pretty unique.
He showed a glimmer of that at ToC last year, doing 30 minutes of 6 w/kg, and only losing about one minute on Alaphillipe. Now, Alaphillipe is a clear notch below guys like Valverde/Rodriguez, who are definitely not as good as Quintana/Froome. But Sagan is doing that at 75kg.
Honestly he was going good today, but I think when the going started to get really hard and the gap was still huge he knew yellow was lost and said "fuck this, I'm just going to take it easy and conserve for tomorrow since the gap to Avermaet is so big". I really believe if Avermaet had been just 1' ahead going over that climb where Sagan was dropped you'd have seen Sagan make it all the way to the line with those guys.
Sagan can't contend with the GC guys, obviously. But Sagan in my opinion is leagues ahead of Avermaet in climbing ability. It would be reeeaallllyyy interesting to see what Sagan could do if he dropped 5-10kgs and switched his focus.
On July 07 2016 05:29 FiWiFaKi wrote: I don't follow sprinters that much, and don't judge my reasons too hard but:
1) He was ranked number 1 here - http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/03/news/road/power-rankings-classics-sprinters_396558 2) His 2016 results also looked good, Tour of Oman, 1st two stages, 1st Eschborn-Frankfurt City Loop, one stage in Tour of Cali, 3 stages in Tour of Qatar, 1 stage in Three Days of De Panne, and 2nd 4th and 6th in in 3 big classics. 3) He was also 10 points, and I weighed their this years achievements, and his looked relatively on par to me at first glance with Greipel, not as good as Kittel obviously, but 6 points cheaper.... And Cavendish hasn't done anything this year.
So yeah, I should've looked into that a bit deeper I guess.
I mean right now it's not like he's destroying my team, he still has 182 points compared to say Greipel's 312 and Kittel's 500 (since he's cheaper)... Also the 6th best sprinter if you don't include Van Avermaet since he got 50 points for today. Contador will likely be the end of me, and hoping Boasson Hagen does work after his Dauphine performance, I thought he was a really value pick.
That rank is from March, sure Kristoff won some at the start of the season and last season he got Flanders and a lot of wins, but in the last few months he has been really lacking, he got some wins but overall he hasn't impressed. If he was on top of his game he would have a chance while not being expensive, but since you said you don't follow sprinters that much it's a more than understandable 'mistake'
I feel for that Contador pick, but I still believe he's going to recover and make a strong second half, possibly getting 1 or 2 stages and placing top5. Podium will be hard because I expect him to lose a little more time this weekend but the guy is though and has shown he can bounce back from setbacks.
Boassen Hagen probably go into some breaks on medium-mountain stages where Cavendish has no chance, him and Cummings have what it takes to contest at least a stage win so you can still get some value from him as well.
And I'm glad you're hopeful about Contador, but when you're getting dropped from a group that still has some 20+ people in it, you still need some massive recovery. If you're getting dropped when there's 20-25 riders in the peloton, you're going to lose 2-3 minutes on the mountain stages. And getting like 5-8 placings where you finish 10th or something, you really don't get that many points. Oh well, we'll see.
What you wrote is true...but the thing is Contador clearly has the fitness. He isn't coming in tired, and was going well. He's just dealing with crashes that have caused some problems, namely that he can't hold the bike the way he wants (shoulder pain), and his left leg is giving him trouble. Can't get the power out.
Concern is legitimate, because if Contador actually has a bad injury it could be brutal. But if it's something minor, he'll be looking great again in the next few days, and still easily able to fight for top 3 and get some wins, which I assume is all you ever had him pegged for.
What surprised me is that like nobody picked Aru. I think he's incredibly strong, and for 16 points a very good deal. I think he would have easily been my 3rd GC guy, but I just couldn't find a GC guy that I'd like for 12 points.
I'm not so bullish on Aru. Maybe I'll be proven wrong though. He seems to me more like a slightly stronger and slightly punchier Majka. He climbs well and can win stages, but isn't a good enough guy over the long term to be a serious overall contender. Outside chance at a podium spot, but that's about it. He is 26 though, so he has plenty of time to blossom into a complete package GC monster.
Referring to Contador, my logic is that if he Crashed in Stage 1 and Stage 2, and then 3 days pass and he is still being dropped and losing time on a stage easier than what's to come in 2 and 3 days, then by doing some interpolation, I don't see him be in proper shape to not lose a minute plus on each of Stage 7-9.
We will see about Aru, but I think you underestimate him. The people who put money on the betting sites currently put him as the third favorite in the race with 12/1 odds (next is TJV at 25/1), behind Froome and Quintana naturally... Contador is now down to 33/1 (I think he was 9/2 or so at the start of the race). Four top 5 Grand Tour finishes in 2014 and 2015 isn't convincing enough for you? S: I'd gladly bet my sig for a few months, with myself taking the side that Aru takes top 4, if you're interested.
As for Sagan, yeah, hard to know for sure. Reflecting back, I agree that I'm not giving him enough credit, and there's a good chance he would be able to stay with the pack yesterday (he even said in his interview there was nothing to fight for once Avermaet had the large lead). It's just he starts going backwards on most hills in the tour (rightfully so, there's nothing for him at the finish line), with the exception of cat 2 or lower summit finishes. I would love to know what GC position Sagan could get with his current body weight if he rode for the yellow jersey, top 30-40? It's hard to speculate, because the only time I see Sagan climbing is when a climb is in the breakaway, and he's fed up that people aren't working, so he drops everyone in the break on a cat 1 climb. And I dunno, I'd rather Sagan stay someone who can win sprinting jerseys and win many classics, but that's just me.
Wow ok I didn't knew he was 72kg :/ I thought he was like a semi-TT more so than sprinter. I also expected he make that escape 2 days earlier instead of Sutvyen :p
Man, I really need to start counting calories more carefully.
I just had an innocent dinner (yeah, kind of late, opps)... Two scrambled eggs with diced onion, two pieces of toasted bread with fresh garlic, little 85g can of tuna (in water, not oil), and just a little shredded cheese sprinkled on top, and protein shake to drink. Take your guess how many calories that'd be - and now, arithmetic:
Two pieces rye bread: 300Cal Two eggs (medium): 140Cal Canola Oil (10mL~): 80Cal Cheese (25g): 100Cal Protein Powder (40g): 150Cal 1/4 onion + garlic: 20Cal Tuna (85g): 90Cal
Total: 880Cal
Man, that's insane to me. I wanted to eat some little extra "snack", since I biked 25km today plus a gym workout, but I'm still trying to eat at somewhere between 2000-2400Cal as I'd like to lose weight at roughly 0.5-1lb a week. Well, I'll be more cautious now... In the TL Fitness thread they'll tell me to eat 140 grams of protein a day, and then with a reasonably lean dinner I go over my calorie threshold to achieve it.
In other news, I decided to use Strava for the first time today, and damn, it was a nice confidence boost. There's this casual 8% average hill of 23m elevation change that everyone goes on in a circuit around a lake I like to do, and out of 13754 attempts I got 768th. I was so casual too, biked up it in 1 minute exactly, at an average speed of 17.8km/h... I didn't even get out my seat, I want to go back again and try my best, I think I could do it in 45-48 seconds. (though the top guy did it in 28 seconds with a power output of 768W).
Well, I don't want to become a Stravasshole but it's a nice feature. My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something.
Anyway, apologies for not TdF talk, hopefully it's not insanely off topic and not bothering people. But for some obligatory TdF talk:
I really enjoy having those views inside the teams, are a focus on one rider, it makes it much more enjoyable for me if I can put a character to a face. I liked this one, as I really didn't know much about Pierre Rolland in the past:
GCN also came up with a couple good ones, getting to go into a couple team trucks and showing the kind of gear and preparation they did with regards to bike parts, food, and other supplies. I haven't watched many in the past, so it was nice for me to see.
On July 07 2016 18:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: In other news, I decided to use Strava for the first time today, and damn, it was a nice confidence boost. There's this casual 8% average hill of 23m elevation change that everyone goes on in a circuit around a lake I like to do, and out of 13754 attempts I got 768th. I was so casual too, biked up it in 1 minute exactly, at an average speed of 17.8km/h... I didn't even get out my seat, I want to go back again and try my best, I think I could do it in 45-48 seconds. (though the top guy did it in 28 seconds with a power output of 768W).
Well, I don't want to become a Stravasshole but it's a nice feature. My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something.
I was kinda anti-strava until a few months ago when I started using it, and gotta say it definitely is a great tool to track your training or even just to have a sort of diary of your workouts/rides. It also has an encouraging effect by showing your progression, PRs and of course comparing to other people's times. However, most segments' best times are done by people riding in bunches/tailwind or even behind vehicles. 28 seconds at 768W are monster numbers and probably just an estimate strava does based on the (inflated) speed. The only segments that matter for the overall leaderboard are bigger climbs or segments with some Kms of length.
Since the strava conversation came up, there are severall riders that put their rides / races there. https://www.strava.com/activities/632225859 That's a ride from one of the movistar guys from yesterday, you can find the other riders doing the TDF who upload their rides there just below the ride's name.
On July 07 2016 18:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: In other news, I decided to use Strava for the first time today, and damn, it was a nice confidence boost. There's this casual 8% average hill of 23m elevation change that everyone goes on in a circuit around a lake I like to do, and out of 13754 attempts I got 768th. I was so casual too, biked up it in 1 minute exactly, at an average speed of 17.8km/h... I didn't even get out my seat, I want to go back again and try my best, I think I could do it in 45-48 seconds. (though the top guy did it in 28 seconds with a power output of 768W).
Well, I don't want to become a Stravasshole but it's a nice feature. My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something.
I was kinda anti-strava until a few months ago when I started using it, and gotta say it definitely is a great tool to track your training or even just to have a sort of diary of your workouts/rides. It also has an encouraging effect by showing your progression, PRs and of course comparing to other people's times. However, most segments' best times are done by people riding in bunches/tailwind or even behind vehicles. 28 seconds at 768W are monster numbers and probably just an estimate strava does based on the (inflated) speed. The only segments that matter for the overall leaderboard are bigger climbs or segments with some Kms of length.
Since the strava conversation came up, there are severall riders that put their rides / races there. https://www.strava.com/activities/632225859 That's a ride from one of the movistar guys from yesterday, you can find the other riders doing the TDF who upload their rides there just below the ride's name.
I think a 28 second effort at 768W is feasible (considering it's the quickest person out of a million plus population). I believe the top sprinters put out an average of 1000W for 12-15 seconds (and usually peaking at 1300-1400 in instantaneous power), and the lead out guys do 700-750W for 30 seconds. According to some charts I found online, for the best world class riders 73kg rider, being completely fresh and putting a max effort for one whole minute would be 839W, but anyway. Impressive nonetheless!
Wow, I didn't think so many would use Strava, especially seeing some people post their rides with heart rates and power meters, thought it'd be more closely guarded info, that is a neat feature! I'm still hesitant about using Strava (I sure want those monthly badges lol), but I also like being casual about it... When it comes to cycling, I don't know exactly how much I'd like concrete numbers for all my rides. I like being able to go hard and then say to myself that I did good and went quickly, etc... And usually I enjoy riding at a brisk pace, and then exploding for a couple kilometers and so on. Eh, well I suppose I'll use it for a while as record keeping, and see how if I like how it affects my mentality.
edit: Anyway, tomorrow is the day, the boys will be separated from the men. 800 meter climb up col d'Aspin followed by a descent and only 1.5km~ of flat/slight uphill the the end afterwards. I expect several attacks with around 12km to go.
Cavendish. Dang. Totally unexpected (to me anyway) for him to come out and perform like this. I thought he was at the point of starting to lose some of his top end, but doesn't seem to be the case. Kittel is either just doing horribly on positioning or not in the same form he was at the Giro...where no one could even hold his wheel when he got going.
Props to the rider that finished third for a wildcard team, beat some serious names.
Tomorrow we begin the prelude to the real fun! I doubt anyone should lose much time unless they are way off their game, should be telling for Contador though.
On July 07 2016 17:16 FiWiFaKi wrote: Referring to Contador, my logic is that if he Crashed in Stage 1 and Stage 2, and then 3 days pass and he is still being dropped and losing time on a stage easier than what's to come in 2 and 3 days, then by doing some interpolation, I don't see him be in proper shape to not lose a minute plus on each of Stage 7-9.
I can see where you are coming from, but injuries are a little different in my book. They can bother you for a few days and then vanish overnight. I don't necessarily mean the injury completely heals, but the pain that's preventing you from riding/running normal goes away and you can perform at full strength even if it's still a little sore. With injury it's really easy to be 80% fitness, 80% fitness, 80% fitness, 80% fitness, 100% fitness.
On July 07 2016 17:16 FiWiFaKi wrote: We will see about Aru, but I think you underestimate him. The people who put money on the betting sites currently put him as the third favorite in the race with 12/1 odds (next is TJV at 25/1), behind Froome and Quintana naturally... Contador is now down to 33/1 (I think he was 9/2 or so at the start of the race). Four top 5 Grand Tour finishes in 2014 and 2015 isn't convincing enough for you? S: I'd gladly bet my sig for a few months, with myself taking the side that Aru takes top 4, if you're interested.
I might be. We will see.
His finishes don't impress me a ton, well at least 2014 definitely doesn't. In the giro he faced a bunch of tier 3 GC guys + Nairo (DNF from Purito). He lost to Uran, and everybody else he beat isn't anyone special. 2014 Vuelta he lost to Froome/Contador/Valverde/Rodriguez...all guys he needs to beat here. Everybody else was like 5+ mins back of him...so basically he lost to everybody worth mentioning when it comes to GC.
Now the good news is 2015 was much strong. His Giro performance was respectable, arguably very good in the final week, but he struggled when it mattered most and was soundly trounced by Contador. His 2015 Vuelta is a little harder to analyze as he did beat a bunch of major names including Froome/Quintana...but those guys were all wasted from doing the Tour. So he beat two second tier GC guys in terms of Purito and Majka.
Basically, it's not that Aru is by any means weak, it's just I haven't seen him display the consistency and strong performances to give me an indication that he can hang with guys like Froome/Quintana/Contador, or really even Porte/TJVG/Pinot.
I'm bullish on Aru down the line, but not for 2016.
On July 07 2016 18:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: Man, I really need to start counting calories more carefully.
I just had an innocent dinner (yeah, kind of late, opps)... Two scrambled eggs with diced onion, two pieces of toasted bread with fresh garlic, little 85g can of tuna (in water, not oil), and just a little shredded cheese sprinkled on top, and protein shake to drink. Take your guess how many calories that'd be - and now, arithmetic:
Two pieces rye bread: 300Cal Two eggs (medium): 140Cal Canola Oil (10mL~): 80Cal Cheese (25g): 100Cal Protein Powder (40g): 150Cal 1/4 onion + garlic: 20Cal Tuna (85g): 90Cal
Total: 880Cal
Man, that's insane to me. I wanted to eat some little extra "snack", since I biked 25km today plus a gym workout, but I'm still trying to eat at somewhere between 2000-2400Cal as I'd like to lose weight at roughly 0.5-1lb a week. Well, I'll be more cautious now... In the TL Fitness thread they'll tell me to eat 140 grams of protein a day, and then with a reasonably lean dinner I go over my calorie threshold to achieve it.
That's probably a fairly good target. You shouldn't have to go way over your TDEE to get in that much protein. 140g of protein is 560 calories. That still leaves at least 1500+ kcal for everything else.
I'm surprised you thought that mean would be so low in calories. But then again I've been using a food scale and counting calories for years so I have a pretty good idea of the calorie counts of most foods.
What's really shocking is once you use a scale how hopelessly far off you are when using measurements. If you really took your time and were super precise about all your measurements for that dinner, you actually ate somewhere between 700-1000 kcal. Any measurements besides a scale just aren't accurate at all.
On July 07 2016 18:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: In other news, I decided to use Strava for the first time today, and damn, it was a nice confidence boost. There's this casual 8% average hill of 23m elevation change that everyone goes on in a circuit around a lake I like to do, and out of 13754 attempts I got 768th. I was so casual too, biked up it in 1 minute exactly, at an average speed of 17.8km/h... I didn't even get out my seat, I want to go back again and try my best, I think I could do it in 45-48 seconds. (though the top guy did it in 28 seconds with a power output of 768W).
Well, I don't want to become a Stravasshole but it's a nice feature. My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something.
If you want to compare, don't look at attempts. Look at how many people have done that segment and see where you rank. I.e. check where you are on the segment leaderboard. My guess is that there will be somewhere between low 1k and low 2k people, which would put you in the top half to third, which is in line with what I would expect from a casual effort up a short climb.
If you are displayed as 768/13754 then all I can say is DAMN, that's a populated segment. The most ridden climb in Colorado that I know of, Lookout Mtn, only has 11,174 different people on the leaderboard (89,253 attempts, so on average each person has ridden it almost 9x).
A word about power on strava leaderboards: If there isn't a lightning bolt by the wattage, then ignore it. It's just strava estimated watts which are completely worthless.
My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something.
Yea, there are lots of stupid segments. Mostly they can just be ignored. It's rather obvious most of the times which segments are meaningful and sensible. And then of course you may find a few of your own that are meaningful to you personally.
Strava actually has some good heatmap stuff you can look at it see which routes/roads are most commonly ridden on.
28 seconds at 768W are monster numbers and probably just an estimate strava does based on the (inflated) speed. The only segments that matter for the overall leaderboard are bigger climbs or segments with some Kms of length.
I think a 28 second effort at 768W is feasible (considering it's the quickest person out of a million plus population). I believe the top sprinters put out an average of 1000W for 12-15 seconds (and usually peaking at 1300-1400 in instantaneous power), and the lead out guys do 700-750W for 30 seconds. According to some charts I found online, for the best world class riders 73kg rider, being completely fresh and putting a max effort for one whole minute would be 839W, but anyway. Impressive nonetheless!
Well it's really easy to see if it's real watts or not. Look for the lightning bolt.
768w for 25-30s isn't what I would call monster numbers (unless that came at the end of a race). I'm a smaller guy at 5'8" (173cm) and not a sprinter of any sort, and have done 734w for 30s. Reasonable number of guys can do close to 1,000w for that time period, and I'm sure there are guys in the tour capable of doing well in the quad digit range for 30s out in training.
If you mean race numbers yea that is probably about right. But in training you're looking at 1800w-2200w for a peak instantaneous power for a guy like Kittel. I've heard Cav quoted around 1600w. 10s would probably be 1500-2000 watt range depending on the sprinter.
When it comes to cycling, I don't know exactly how much I'd like concrete numbers for all my rides. I like being able to go hard and then say to myself that I did good and went quickly, etc... And usually I enjoy riding at a brisk pace, and then exploding for a couple kilometers and so on. Eh, well I suppose I'll use it for a while as record keeping, and see how if I like how it affects my mentality.
This to me is the beauty about strava. You use it however you wish. Don't want to get into numbers and comparisons? Just upload your ride and don't worry about it. Or if you're a data junky dive right in!
On July 07 2016 18:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: Man, I really need to start counting calories more carefully.
I just had an innocent dinner (yeah, kind of late, opps)... Two scrambled eggs with diced onion, two pieces of toasted bread with fresh garlic, little 85g can of tuna (in water, not oil), and just a little shredded cheese sprinkled on top, and protein shake to drink. Take your guess how many calories that'd be - and now, arithmetic:
Two pieces rye bread: 300Cal Two eggs (medium): 140Cal Canola Oil (10mL~): 80Cal Cheese (25g): 100Cal Protein Powder (40g): 150Cal 1/4 onion + garlic: 20Cal Tuna (85g): 90Cal
Total: 880Cal
Man, that's insane to me. I wanted to eat some little extra "snack", since I biked 25km today plus a gym workout, but I'm still trying to eat at somewhere between 2000-2400Cal as I'd like to lose weight at roughly 0.5-1lb a week. Well, I'll be more cautious now... In the TL Fitness thread they'll tell me to eat 140 grams of protein a day, and then with a reasonably lean dinner I go over my calorie threshold to achieve it.
That's probably a fairly good target. You shouldn't have to go way over your TDEE to get in that much protein. 140g of protein is 560 calories. That still leaves at least 1500+ kcal for everything else.
I'm surprised you thought that mean would be so low in calories. But then again I've been using a food scale and counting calories for years so I have a pretty good idea of the calorie counts of most foods.
What's really shocking is once you use a scale how hopelessly far off you are when using measurements. If you really took your time and were super precise about all your measurements for that dinner, you actually ate somewhere between 700-1000 kcal. Any measurements besides a scale just aren't accurate at all.
On July 07 2016 18:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: In other news, I decided to use Strava for the first time today, and damn, it was a nice confidence boost. There's this casual 8% average hill of 23m elevation change that everyone goes on in a circuit around a lake I like to do, and out of 13754 attempts I got 768th. I was so casual too, biked up it in 1 minute exactly, at an average speed of 17.8km/h... I didn't even get out my seat, I want to go back again and try my best, I think I could do it in 45-48 seconds. (though the top guy did it in 28 seconds with a power output of 768W).
Well, I don't want to become a Stravasshole but it's a nice feature. My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something.
If you want to compare, don't look at attempts. Look at how many people have done that segment and see where you rank. I.e. check where you are on the segment leaderboard. My guess is that there will be somewhere between low 1k and low 2k people, which would put you in the top half to third, which is in line with what I would expect from a casual effort up a short climb.
If you are displayed as 768/13754 then all I can say is DAMN, that's a populated segment. The most ridden climb in Colorado that I know of, Lookout Mtn, only has 11,174 different people on the leaderboard (89,253 attempts, so on average each person has ridden it almost 9x).
A word about power on strava leaderboards: If there isn't a lightning bolt by the wattage, then ignore it. It's just strava estimated watts which are completely worthless.
My issue is that there's roughly a million segments in my city, so none of them hold any value... I would much prefer like, some rating or popularity format, so the popular and good stuff shows up, and so I can actually use it to learn about new paths or something.
Yea, there are lots of stupid segments. Mostly they can just be ignored. It's rather obvious most of the times which segments are meaningful and sensible. And then of course you may find a few of your own that are meaningful to you personally.
Strava actually has some good heatmap stuff you can look at it see which routes/roads are most commonly ridden on.
28 seconds at 768W are monster numbers and probably just an estimate strava does based on the (inflated) speed. The only segments that matter for the overall leaderboard are bigger climbs or segments with some Kms of length.
I think a 28 second effort at 768W is feasible (considering it's the quickest person out of a million plus population). I believe the top sprinters put out an average of 1000W for 12-15 seconds (and usually peaking at 1300-1400 in instantaneous power), and the lead out guys do 700-750W for 30 seconds. According to some charts I found online, for the best world class riders 73kg rider, being completely fresh and putting a max effort for one whole minute would be 839W, but anyway. Impressive nonetheless!
Well it's really easy to see if it's real watts or not. Look for the lightning bolt.
768w for 25-30s isn't what I would call monster numbers (unless that came at the end of a race). I'm a smaller guy at 5'8" (173cm) and not a sprinter of any sort, and have done 734w for 30s. Reasonable number of guys can do close to 1,000w for that time period, and I'm sure there are guys in the tour capable of doing well in the quad digit range for 30s out in training.
If you mean race numbers yea that is probably about right. But in training you're looking at 1800w-2200w for a peak instantaneous power for a guy like Kittel. I've heard Cav quoted around 1600w. 10s would probably be 1500-2000 watt range depending on the sprinter.
When it comes to cycling, I don't know exactly how much I'd like concrete numbers for all my rides. I like being able to go hard and then say to myself that I did good and went quickly, etc... And usually I enjoy riding at a brisk pace, and then exploding for a couple kilometers and so on. Eh, well I suppose I'll use it for a while as record keeping, and see how if I like how it affects my mentality.
This to me is the beauty about strava. You use it however you wish. Don't want to get into numbers and comparisons? Just upload your ride and don't worry about it. Or if you're a data junky dive right in!
My strategy for constant weight is when not doing strength training to just weigh myself. As long as I'm eating relatively clean, I can just decrease or increase how much I'm eating as a response to seeing the numbers on the scale change. And then I'll have a multivitamin or two of those vitamin gummies a day. I'm not really sure what nutrient I should be counting if I'm keeping track of my fat, eating lean meat, and eating a couple vitamins... And how it'd change my eating habits. It's just currently I'm trying to put on muscle while losing body fat (I think I'm currently at 19-20%, though I still look okay imo since I'm a bit more built than most people). I'd like to get down to somewhere between 13-15% by the end of the year. My skin is kind of stupid though, and it doesn't deal with stretching very well, and so I don't want to gain excessive weight when bulking (for skin and cycling purposes), but at the same time I'd still like to increase strength incrementally.
And yeah, for my meal I just used what was on the boxes, for the weight of eggs and whatnot. I cook a lot (I know my last meal doesn't look like it), and measure volumes and masses quite frequently, so I'd like to think I was reasonably accurate. You are so much more diligent with all of this stuff Eric, but if it's what you enjoy, then keep doing it.
Oh, you're right, on Strava I ended up looking on the total attempts, in reality there's 2,800 who did the climb, so much less impressive now haha. Ah well, I'll go back today and crush that time (by the way, on topic on Strava and the heart rate stuff... Do you use that feature, and if so, do you have a sensor you recommend for it? And maybe a good cadence sensor too?)
You're right that there's a lot I can ignore, but when I'm fairly zoomed out, some completely random segments pop up, but if they had some rating attached to them I'd like it a lot more, as the popular or fun segments would pop up. You know, like top 50 rated segments in the city, and that way I could find new routes. Now it's just a segment on every 5th street, or 10 different segments for the same loop just starting at different locations, etc. Oh yeah, I used the heatmap on Strava, that was a really neat feature to find new paths for sure, especially when trying to go to the mountain from here and finding the safest roads and whatnot.
You're the expert on this stuff, so I wont argue with you, though yesterday when looking at this, I read that Cavendish article, and also looked at some power vs time curves for sprints, and the peak power isn't a good representation at all. Initially it's very high during that acceleration, but it quickly drops off. Cavendish peaks at 1580W in training, but supposedly where he excels at is pedaling quickly, so he can keep a relatively high power output during much of the stroke. So yeah, you peak high, but it's such an instantaneous power that it holds little value imo,since it drops so quickly down to 700-900 by the end of the sprint (plus being tired from the stage), that average power in a sprint in the TdF is 1020 (for those finishing in the top 5), according to this website here: http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07/profile-sprint-take-win-sprint-stage/
Anyway, I appreciate the information as always! ^^
edit: Also, a pet peeve of mine, people like to talk about W/kg on non-climbs. Like that article I posted, it is such a silly metric... Saying 6W/kg wins yellow, 8W/kg wins last minute breakaways, and 18W/kg wins sprints... Like really, how much higher is the Cd*A of someone like Sagan or Avermaet compared to Froome or Contador, or really, how large of an impact does that extra rolling resistance due to 10kg make. I believe when I did the calculations, for my size and riding position, if I'm putting out 300W, 80.5% of resistance is due to the air at no gradient. Now they are in more streamlined positions and going ever faster, so air resistance probably accounts for close to 90% for them, and rolling resistance is closer to like... 5% maybe. The only place where weight plays a factor on a flat is rolling resistance and that. Plus, it's still a bad comparison since you're only accounting for the weight of the rider, and everyone has to have a bike that weighs the same. If one rider weighs 130 and another weighs 160, in reality he's not 23.08% heavier, but 20.69%, since all bikes weigh 15lbs at TdF (not to mention all the other gear that weighs the same for both like water bottles).
To me it's a lot more natural to express numbers in pure watts. Whether someone weighs 200lbs or 150lbs, they still have similar lungs, a similar heart, etc. Especially expressing things like maximum effort in W/kg... This number changes so much depending on the weight of the rider, while watts don't change with the weight of the rider (or far less anyway). Seems like the scientists of cycling are trying to normalize power, and in the process they make it say less than it originally said.
My strategy for constant weight is when not doing strength training to just weigh myself. As long as I'm eating relatively clean, I can just decrease or increase how much I'm eating as a response to seeing the numbers on the scale change. And then I'll have a multivitamin or two of those vitamin gummies a day. I'm not really sure what nutrient I should be counting if I'm keeping track of my fat, eating lean meat, and eating a couple vitamins... And how it'd change my eating habits.
I'm jealous of you guys who can use the scale over a short/mid term for weight loss/gain! For me, especially when losing I retain water like crazy. I can be running up some deficit that should be good for 1 kg/wk, and I'll literally stay the same consistent weight on the scale for 2, sometimes even 3 weeks...then BOOM. Over the course of a day/night I'll suddenly be several kilo's lighter on the scale, and it will stay that way.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: It's just currently I'm trying to put on muscle while losing body fat (I think I'm currently at 19-20%, though I still look okay imo since I'm a bit more built than most people). I'd like to get down to somewhere between 13-15% by the end of the year. My skin is kind of stupid though, and it doesn't deal with stretching very well, and so I don't want to gain excessive weight when bulking (for skin and cycling purposes), but at the same time I'd still like to increase strength incrementally.
Trying to add muscle while losing weight is a pain. Usually something close to maintaining is the best to hope for. A guy with good amount of muscle will start to look pretty good in that 13-15% range. Won't be getting the shredded six pack, but most the flab will be gone and you'll start to notice muscle tone in many of the major groups.
I'm pissed at myself. I had a great winter, working down all the way a little south of 65kg and around 12% BF, but between getting sick 5 times in three months back late spring, and lack of attention I popped right back up to 68-69 kg and probably 14-15%. Got some work to do if I want to get down to that 60-62 kg range and 6-8% BF I'd like to try out just once. Mostly for me it's the struggle against binging and/or just wanting sugar stuff. I'll get on some good runs, run a nice deficit for a week, and then suddenly decide it's time to eat a box of oreo cookies and a massive stuff crust pizza: Insta 5000+ kcal day.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: And yeah, for my meal I just used what was on the boxes, for the weight of eggs and whatnot. I cook a lot (I know my last meal doesn't look like it), and measure volumes and masses quite frequently, so I'd like to think I was reasonably accurate. You are so much more diligent with all of this stuff Eric, but if it's what you enjoy, then keep doing it.
I have no doubt you're measuring as accurately as you can. The problem is that those measurements on the sides of things just don't have good precision, and sometimes the way they state things on boxes just isn't very good. Biggest example for me was white rice. It would say 1/2 cup = 160 kcal. So I'd measure out my 1 cup and think I was getting 320kcal of rice. Got a food scale, weighed up that rice from one cup and...low and behold! That one cup I was measuring out (even going as low below the line as I could) was 125g, or just shy of three servings (44g in that 160kcal serving). So each time I made rice I was eating at least 100-150 kcal more than I thought. It's not so much user error as it is inaccuracy inherent what constitutes the different measurements.
As for being diligent. Sorta. More just I like knowing, and it doesn't take any extra time so why not? I'd say it's faster to dump out rice to 90g on the scale than it is to try and eyeball 1 cup. If I didn't even try to measure at all I doubt it would even save me 1 minute on the prep of a large meal. So from my own perspective there is zero downside, with the upside of "knowledge is power" even if I don't really care that much if my meal comes out to 1500 or 1400 kcal.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: Oh, you're right, on Strava I ended up looking on the total attempts, in reality there's 2,800 who did the climb, so much less impressive now haha. Ah well, I'll go back today and crush that time (by the way, on topic on Strava and the heart rate stuff... Do you use that feature, and if so, do you have a sensor you recommend for it? And maybe a good cadence sensor too?)
I haven't used HR much, even though I got the strap. Sometimes I think it would be cool to know, but I generally just get lazy and don't wear the strap. Cadence sensor depends on what you want it for. If you just want it for cadence you can look at as you ride most anything works. If you want cadence you can upload to strava, then you'll need a Garmin head-unit and an ANT+ compatible speed/cadence sensor. No way to get cadence data into a strava mobile file.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: You're right that there's a lot I can ignore, but when I'm fairly zoomed out, some completely random segments pop up, but if they had some rating attached to them I'd like it a lot more, as the popular or fun segments would pop up. You know, like top 50 rated segments in the city, and that way I could find new routes.
Yea, I agree that would be nice. You do however get to learn your area pretty quickly in terms of what are good segments/roads and which segments are stupid and nobody gives a shit about. Personally I rarely worry about segments too much, beyond liking to defend "home turf", like segments within 10k of my house. I can't remember the last time I've really chased a segment beyond that.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: You're the expert on this stuff, so I wont argue with you, though yesterday when looking at this, I read that Cavendish article, and also looked at some power vs time curves for sprints, and the peak power isn't a good representation at all. Initially it's very high during that acceleration, but it quickly drops off. Cavendish peaks at 1580W in training, but supposedly where he excels at is pedaling quickly, so he can keep a relatively high power output during much of the stroke. So yeah, you peak high, but it's such an instantaneous power that it holds little value imo,since it drops so quickly down to 700-900 by the end of the sprint (plus being tired from the stage), that average power in a sprint in the TdF is 1020 (for those finishing in the top 5), according to this website here: http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07/profile-sprint-take-win-sprint-stage/
That's basically correct as I see it. Those training numbers are probably what you need to have a chance to 'play the game' so to speak. In other words if you can't go lay down at least 1500w, and quite possibly closer to 2000w for 5s or so out training you flat out don't have the power to play on the world stage. Of course, winning a stage is about a hell of a lot more than laying down some watts, so just because you can do 1800w for 10s doesn't mean you're going to win.
Honestly, I'm surprised there is such a drop and that the power is so low. That has to be a result of the last 10km fun. I can ride hard for 4-5 hours and still pop 95% of my sprint watts. However, at the end of a fast finish of a hard race I might only get 70% of my sprint watts. You should be able to hold maximal power for at least 6-8s, and even then the drop off for 12-14s shouldn't be that huge. My guess is fatigue plays a significant role, particularly the work required in the last 10km of the race. All those jumps from corners, sprinting for positioning, and the general insane pace probably take a toll, such that you're already quite wasted when sprinting for a stage victory.
Peak power/5 second power still matters though, if for no reason that it determines what you're sprint will be. A burning lactic Marcel Kittel is still going to unleash 1000w+ for 15s, whereas I would struggle to do that having rested for a week. That the initial jump is often made from behind someones wheel, less exposed to the wind, so if you're jump is good you can get a really good slingshot before you move out on your own. Second, peak power heavily influences where you drop to. A guy that peaks a 1100w might drop to 800w after 12s. A guy peaking at 1400w is definitely NOT going to drop to 800w.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Saying 6W/kg wins yellow, 8W/kg wins last minute breakaways, and 18W/kg wins sprints... Like really, how much higher is the Cd*A of someone like Sagan or Avermaet compared to Froome or Contador, or really, how large of an impact does that extra rolling resistance due to 10kg make. I believe when I did the calculations, for my size and riding position, if I'm putting out 300W, 80.5% of resistance is due to the air at no gradient. Now they are in more streamlined positions and going ever faster, so air resistance probably accounts for close to 90% for them, and rolling resistance is closer to like... 5% maybe. The only place where weight plays a factor on a flat is rolling resistance and that. Plus, it's still a bad comparison since you're only accounting for the weight of the rider, and everyone has to have a bike that weighs the same. If one rider weighs 130 and another weighs 160, in reality he's not 23.08% heavier, but 20.69%, since all bikes weigh 15lbs at TdF (not to mention all the other gear that weighs the same for both like water bottles).
To me it's a lot more natural to express numbers in pure watts. Whether someone weighs 200lbs or 150lbs, they still have similar lungs, a similar heart, etc. Especially expressing things like maximum effort in W/kg... This number changes so much depending on the weight of the rider, while watts don't change with the weight of the rider (or far less anyway). Seems like the scientists of cycling are trying to normalize power, and in the process they make it say less than it originally said.
First off, for yellow it's perfectly fine. The mountains decide yellow and w/kg is by far the #1 component there (though not as much as some people believe, especially on mid gradients). 6 w/kg from a 67kg Froome is faster up a 6% grade than the 6 w/kg from a 56kg Nairo Quintana.
Now, when it comes to the other things, yes and no. There is a pretty good deal of truth to Watts/CdA for the flat, w/kg for the hills. And when you get to dialed in TT bikes everyones CdA is indeed pretty good. That said, weight generally does correlate with physical size. A 5'6 guy like Quintana takes up quite a bit less overall front area than does a Fabian Cancellara. Not enough that Cancellara's 450w is going to lose to Nairo's 370w, but enough that the 80w difference isn't resulting in 10 minute time differences.
When it comes to sprints there is still some relevance to w/kg. Uphill sprints it's clear why w/kg plays a role. However, w/kg matters in sprints also because of acceleration. A 50kg mass being accelerated at 1200w will shoot forward just as fast as a 90kg mass with 2,160w. Then there is the correlation between size and CdA. Think Caleb Ewan. Okay, his position is freakishly aerodynamic, but his whole body is MUCH smaller than that of Kittel, even all bent over the bike trying to reduce that he is still a lot smaller. And it shows, Ewan is over 600w lower reported power than Kittel based on training numbers, and yet is still a pretty damn competitive sprinter.
One thing that's worth being clear about though is that it isn't w/kg inherently that matters, but w/kg often correlates with CdA.
When it comes to breakaway moves it's really variable. Breakaways can be on almost any terrain. Here again, w/kg as it's relevancy because that initial acceleration is important. A winning move always starts with a sprint, not a 600w surge. The sprint serves to jump you off the wheels of the others and not allow them to sit on you. Try to cruise by at 600w and everyone else will just follow your wheel doing 350w chilling. Acceleration is heavily a w/kg function, so having that jump is really important. I don't care if you're 200kg and putting out 2000w, that isn't going to get you separation in a race winning jump. 10 w/kg isn't a big enough acceleration to get others off your wheel and ensure they have to work just as hard to catch back on. The other reason it's somewhat useful is that it depends on the type of break. In other words a mountain stage break probably consists of smaller climbers, so for that break 8 w/kg is going to be pretty similar for all of those guys. Same thing with a flat stage break. If you have a 60kg guy in that break, chances are he isn't feeling too much energy left to go for the win, compared with a big 75kg classics tank. In that flat break it's the bigger riders that are likely to be more dangerous, so even though w/kg might not tell us everything, it inherently lends itself to 'apples to apples' comparisons when speaking of breakaways.
I agree that expressing sprints in w/kg feels a little silly. Unless it's more as a gauge of potential. My realistic idea race weight is 60kg, so it's not realistic for me to even dream of doing much over 420w for 5'. Or over 700w for a minute. You could argue that with some serious weight training I could maybe put on 5-10kg of leg mass and see higher numbers over 5s and 1', but I feel pretty confident that 3' and beyond benefits very little from explosive weight training or extra mass.
Where I do disagree is the "similar lungs, similar heart part". Bigger guys put out more watts precisely because they have larger hearts and greater muscle mass. No 5'4" guy is ever going to have a 400w FTP. Nairo is a good example, as he is 55kg. There is no way on earth he is putting out 400w at FTP. Absolute best case would be 370w FTP, which is probably generous.
Man, F my life. Pinot losing over 3 minutes today, gg fantasy, might as well make my goal to not finish last. Contador holding on is at least something,
Too bad I missed it live, seems like a lot of silly stuff was going on with the Flamme Rouge falling on the peloton and whatnot. I'll watch more once some longer segments start to get posted. We're down to the last 20 riders who haven't lost more than 20 seconds in GC, I expect that will be cut by about 40-50% by the end of tomorrow.
Thanks FIWIFaKi, you were the first one wishing me happy birthday since actually my birthday is only tomorrow ^^
Tomorrow will definitely make bigger gaps, the Tourmalet alone will tire everyone especially if sky or movistar set a moderately high pace from the start of the climb, and those two first category climbs aren't easy at all either, and despite not being a summit finish there's really not much ground after the last climb to recover and since it's downhill I expect the gaps to remain pretty much the same as they were on the top.
My strategy for constant weight is when not doing strength training to just weigh myself. As long as I'm eating relatively clean, I can just decrease or increase how much I'm eating as a response to seeing the numbers on the scale change. And then I'll have a multivitamin or two of those vitamin gummies a day. I'm not really sure what nutrient I should be counting if I'm keeping track of my fat, eating lean meat, and eating a couple vitamins... And how it'd change my eating habits.
I'm jealous of you guys who can use the scale over a short/mid term for weight loss/gain! For me, especially when losing I retain water like crazy. I can be running up some deficit that should be good for 1 kg/wk, and I'll literally stay the same consistent weight on the scale for 2, sometimes even 3 weeks...then BOOM. Over the course of a day/night I'll suddenly be several kilo's lighter on the scale, and it will stay that way.
Hmm, that is a bit odd to me. You probably need more precision in your weight than me, but I haven't found that to be the case for me if I weigh myself when I wake up after going to the the bathroom. Maybe there's noise variation due to water/food/etc of like 1-1.5lbs at maximum.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: It's just currently I'm trying to put on muscle while losing body fat (I think I'm currently at 19-20%, though I still look okay imo since I'm a bit more built than most people). I'd like to get down to somewhere between 13-15% by the end of the year. My skin is kind of stupid though, and it doesn't deal with stretching very well, and so I don't want to gain excessive weight when bulking (for skin and cycling purposes), but at the same time I'd still like to increase strength incrementally.
Trying to add muscle while losing weight is a pain. Usually something close to maintaining is the best to hope for. A guy with good amount of muscle will start to look pretty good in that 13-15% range. Won't be getting the shredded six pack, but most the flab will be gone and you'll start to notice muscle tone in many of the major groups.
I'm pissed at myself. I had a great winter, working down all the way a little south of 65kg and around 12% BF, but between getting sick 5 times in three months back late spring, and lack of attention I popped right back up to 68-69 kg and probably 14-15%. Got some work to do if I want to get down to that 60-62 kg range and 6-8% BF I'd like to try out just once. Mostly for me it's the struggle against binging and/or just wanting sugar stuff. I'll get on some good runs, run a nice deficit for a week, and then suddenly decide it's time to eat a box of oreo cookies and a massive stuff crust pizza: Insta 5000+ kcal day.
Oof, 6-8% is so hard when you want to live as a normal person haha. I think I was around there as a teenager when I had a legit six pack, but never again.Yeah, once you start going south of 12% things just get hard, it's hard to keep muscle on, you have to be very cautious of your diet, etc. 13-15% is kind of my goal, and the only reason I'd go less than that 13% is if I had some competition or I had people I really wanted to impress during a vacation to the caribbean. Like you said too though, sickness or lack of attention just destroys all progress, so usually people are better off taking some moderate approach and being able to be consistent with it (at least that's what I found for myself)
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: And yeah, for my meal I just used what was on the boxes, for the weight of eggs and whatnot. I cook a lot (I know my last meal doesn't look like it), and measure volumes and masses quite frequently, so I'd like to think I was reasonably accurate. You are so much more diligent with all of this stuff Eric, but if it's what you enjoy, then keep doing it.
I have no doubt you're measuring as accurately as you can. The problem is that those measurements on the sides of things just don't have good precision, and sometimes the way they state things on boxes just isn't very good. Biggest example for me was white rice. It would say 1/2 cup = 160 kcal. So I'd measure out my 1 cup and think I was getting 320kcal of rice. Got a food scale, weighed up that rice from one cup and...low and behold! That one cup I was measuring out (even going as low below the line as I could) was 125g, or just shy of three servings (44g in that 160kcal serving). So each time I made rice I was eating at least 100-150 kcal more than I thought. It's not so much user error as it is inaccuracy inherent what constitutes the different measurements.
As for being diligent. Sorta. More just I like knowing, and it doesn't take any extra time so why not? I'd say it's faster to dump out rice to 90g on the scale than it is to try and eyeball 1 cup. If I didn't even try to measure at all I doubt it would even save me 1 minute on the prep of a large meal. So from my own perspective there is zero downside, with the upside of "knowledge is power" even if I don't really care that much if my meal comes out to 1500 or 1400 kcal.
Fair enough. For something like rice it's not a big deal, though I still think it's better to do it once, and then you can correlate the mass to a volume just because it's quicker. However if you're going to be weighing butter, bread, raw meat, shredded potato, or meat with bones or something it gets more tedious and create more dishes for you too. Essentially at the point where I'm in my fitness it's just be a burden and an extra thing to think about instead of the easier following guidelines and rules of thumb. Anyway, who knows, I might be what you're doing in a few months time haha.
On July 08 2016 07:52 FiWiFaKi wrote: Oh, you're right, on Strava I ended up looking on the total attempts, in reality there's 2,800 who did the climb, so much less impressive now haha. Ah well, I'll go back today and crush that time (by the way, on topic on Strava and the heart rate stuff... Do you use that feature, and if so, do you have a sensor you recommend for it? And maybe a good cadence sensor too?)
I haven't used HR much, even though I got the strap. Sometimes I think it would be cool to know, but I generally just get lazy and don't wear the strap. Cadence sensor depends on what you want it for. If you just want it for cadence you can look at as you ride most anything works. If you want cadence you can upload to strava, then you'll need a Garmin head-unit and an ANT+ compatible speed/cadence sensor. No way to get cadence data into a strava mobile file.
Yeah, cycling computers are something I'm fairly unfamiliar with, though I don't understand why anyone would buy one of those Garmin things. Doesn't my Samsung S5 have the ability to do everything that one of those does? I'd like some phone application that combines the phone GPS, maps, and elevation features... While also feeding in information from a Cadence sensor (which should also be able to measure speed if I specify wheel size I'd think), and that way I'd get more accurate and responsible speed data than GPS. As well it should be available to feed in heart rate and power data from other sensors.
So Strava is nice, but supposedly it doesn't support the feature to display real time speed from a sensor or real time cadence from a sensor? That to me is a pretty big shortfall if that's the case, and odd to me that it isn't supported, and I fail to see where the difficulty in implementing that would be.
Saying 6W/kg wins yellow, 8W/kg wins last minute breakaways, and 18W/kg wins sprints... Like really, how much higher is the Cd*A of someone like Sagan or Avermaet compared to Froome or Contador, or really, how large of an impact does that extra rolling resistance due to 10kg make. I believe when I did the calculations, for my size and riding position, if I'm putting out 300W, 80.5% of resistance is due to the air at no gradient. Now they are in more streamlined positions and going ever faster, so air resistance probably accounts for close to 90% for them, and rolling resistance is closer to like... 5% maybe. The only place where weight plays a factor on a flat is rolling resistance and that. Plus, it's still a bad comparison since you're only accounting for the weight of the rider, and everyone has to have a bike that weighs the same. If one rider weighs 130 and another weighs 160, in reality he's not 23.08% heavier, but 20.69%, since all bikes weigh 15lbs at TdF (not to mention all the other gear that weighs the same for both like water bottles).
To me it's a lot more natural to express numbers in pure watts. Whether someone weighs 200lbs or 150lbs, they still have similar lungs, a similar heart, etc. Especially expressing things like maximum effort in W/kg... This number changes so much depending on the weight of the rider, while watts don't change with the weight of the rider (or far less anyway). Seems like the scientists of cycling are trying to normalize power, and in the process they make it say less than it originally said.
First off, for yellow it's perfectly fine. The mountains decide yellow and w/kg is by far the #1 component there (though not as much as some people believe, especially on mid gradients). 6 w/kg from a 67kg Froome is faster up a 6% grade than the 6 w/kg from a 56kg Nairo Quintana.
Now, when it comes to the other things, yes and no. There is a pretty good deal of truth to Watts/CdA for the flat, w/kg for the hills. And when you get to dialed in TT bikes everyones CdA is indeed pretty good. That said, weight generally does correlate with physical size. A 5'6 guy like Quintana takes up quite a bit less overall front area than does a Fabian Cancellara. Not enough that Cancellara's 450w is going to lose to Nairo's 370w, but enough that the 80w difference isn't resulting in 10 minute time differences.
When it comes to sprints there is still some relevance to w/kg. Uphill sprints it's clear why w/kg plays a role. However, w/kg matters in sprints also because of acceleration. A 50kg mass being accelerated at 1200w will shoot forward just as fast as a 90kg mass with 2,160w. Then there is the correlation between size and CdA. Think Caleb Ewan. Okay, his position is freakishly aerodynamic, but his whole body is MUCH smaller than that of Kittel, even all bent over the bike trying to reduce that he is still a lot smaller. And it shows, Ewan is over 600w lower reported power than Kittel based on training numbers, and yet is still a pretty damn competitive sprinter.
One thing that's worth being clear about though is that it isn't w/kg inherently that matters, but w/kg often correlates with CdA.
When it comes to breakaway moves it's really variable. Breakaways can be on almost any terrain. Here again, w/kg as it's relevancy because that initial acceleration is important. A winning move always starts with a sprint, not a 600w surge. The sprint serves to jump you off the wheels of the others and not allow them to sit on you. Try to cruise by at 600w and everyone else will just follow your wheel doing 350w chilling. Acceleration is heavily a w/kg function, so having that jump is really important. I don't care if you're 200kg and putting out 2000w, that isn't going to get you separation in a race winning jump. 10 w/kg isn't a big enough acceleration to get others off your wheel and ensure they have to work just as hard to catch back on. The other reason it's somewhat useful is that it depends on the type of break. In other words a mountain stage break probably consists of smaller climbers, so for that break 8 w/kg is going to be pretty similar for all of those guys. Same thing with a flat stage break. If you have a 60kg guy in that break, chances are he isn't feeling too much energy left to go for the win, compared with a big 75kg classics tank. In that flat break it's the bigger riders that are likely to be more dangerous, so even though w/kg might not tell us everything, it inherently lends itself to 'apples to apples' comparisons when speaking of breakaways.
I agree that expressing sprints in w/kg feels a little silly. Unless it's more as a gauge of potential. My realistic idea race weight is 60kg, so it's not realistic for me to even dream of doing much over 420w for 5'. Or over 700w for a minute. You could argue that with some serious weight training I could maybe put on 5-10kg of leg mass and see higher numbers over 5s and 1', but I feel pretty confident that 3' and beyond benefits very little from explosive weight training or extra mass.
Where I do disagree is the "similar lungs, similar heart part". Bigger guys put out more watts precisely because they have larger hearts and greater muscle mass. No 5'4" guy is ever going to have a 400w FTP. Nairo is a good example, as he is 55kg. There is no way on earth he is putting out 400w at FTP. Absolute best case would be 370w FTP, which is probably generous.
You bring up the case of Quintana, so sure, that's a bit of an exception, but look at like every GC rider vs sprinters, they are the same height. Froome 6'1", Contador 5'9", Aru 6'0", Pinot 5'11", TJVG 6'1', Porte 5'8. And compare that to ITT and Sprinters: Sagan 6', Cancellara 6'1, Tony Martin 6'1", Greipel 6'0", Cavendish 5'9", Kittel 6'2", Coquard 5'7".
So really, I think the size of the body parts of riders are relatively similar (and hence my reasoning for the average rider whatever his specialization has a similar heart and lungs), and thus expressing power in watts is far more logical to me, than expressing it in W/Kg, and somehow comparing it to how much someone weighs. It's the same thing of when you express the power of like any machine, like a car, motorcycle, aircraft... You always express it in units of power, or units of force in the case of engine thrust. Yes, power to weight ratio is a thing, and it's discussed, but it's a secondary thing. It's like if I gave you the power to weight ratio of a car's engine without even including its whole body.
As for the acceleration stuff you mentioned, I don't think it plays that big of a role. Lets say a rider 1 plus bike weigh 80kgs and rider 2 it's 90kg. And lets assume they are accelerating from 40km/h to 55km/h, and perform the acceleration in 3 seconds. Assuming constant acceleration, that's 1.39m/s^2. And now P = F*delta_v = m*a*delta_v = 10kg*1.39*15/3.6. So to perform this acceleration, it requires 57.9W of additional power for the heavier rider, though I made the assumption that power transmission is the same for both riders, rolling resistance is the same for both riders, and CdA is the same for both riders... Actually I made too many assumptions here. The point I was trying to get at is the acceleration is a small part of the power needed in a race, and so a person's inertia isn't all that important. Secondly, what I also wanted to show is that the Cd*A of a rider doesn't change much with weight, as weight is proportional to volume, which is L^3, while surface area is L^2. So if rider 1 has a mass of 80, his area is equal to 18.566, while rider 2 with a mass of 90, has an area of 20.08 (relative terms). So his CdA would be 8.15% higher, instead of 12.5% higher. Not only that, muscle in denser at 1060kg/m^3 vs 960kg/m^3 for the rest of your body. Additionally, the bicycle aerodynamics are the same for riders of different muscle sizes, plus additional fluid dynamics effects, that I'd expect it to be around 4% instead of the initial 12.5% (hopefully that was possible to follow).
I see the advantages of both, and I'm not saying that W/kg is absolute rubbish, I just think that pure wattage is better, and I've read several articles that inspired me to think about it, and in general there was agreement.
On July 09 2016 06:14 Gjhc wrote: Thanks FIWIFaKi, you were the first one wishing me happy birthday since actually my birthday is only tomorrow ^^
Tomorrow will definitely make bigger gaps, the Tourmalet alone will tire everyone especially if sky or movistar set a moderately high pace from the start of the climb, and those two first category climbs aren't easy at all either, and despite not being a summit finish there's really not much ground after the last climb to recover and since it's downhill I expect the gaps to remain pretty much the same as they were on the top.
Teamliquid is your real family
And yeah, for tomorrow the possibility for huge gaps is there. There isn't a single flat kilometer for almost 120km, which means there's little reason to ride in a peleton, so pushing early is just fine. Really just depends on when a team will decide to push, or if Quintana and Froome will be feeling everyone out until the last climb, and everyone else will be too nervous to expend energy on an attack.
Fiwifaki looks like you were right about Dumoulin after all, today he couldn't even follow the peloton while they were just cruising up the mountain o_o. He said in interview he feels fine but just can't find the power somehow. Apparently he did fall close before the start of the Tour, maybe that is working against him now someway.
Crazy scenes today. Nibali gets in perfect position to win the race, but suddenly can't even follow Daryl Impey up a mountain! What on earth. I know it's hard to do well in back to back Grand Tours but this is some weak shit from him. Wonder how Aru feels now. Also Pinot, so weird, his team even rode in front at the start of the mountain!?
Cummings is such a powerhouse, it's insane. Also 4 British wins already in this Tour (good revenge for their football team), and 4 for Dimension data as well. Who would have thought. And Van Avermaet extending his lead. I don't even know what is going on anymore.
And Yates getting hit by the inflatable finish thingy falling down LOL. https://streamable.com/ap9r Only in cycling. Apparently he attacked the peloton at that time when it came down on him. The organisation gave him a 1 second lead on that group so he could get the white jersey tomorrow for his troubles.
Pretty disappointed in GC guys not challenging eachother, tomorrow will probably be boring until the last climb if you look at this :X
I'll have to rewatch Nibali stuff, and though it is weak from him, when he got dropped on the previous stages, he said that it was nice that he didn't feel the pressure like last year, but that his legs wouldn't let him keep going, so I suppose it's not that unexpected, though he still got 4th, so he's doing better than Contador for points lol.
Yeah, great job from Cummings, and crazy that Dimension Data are doing so much work given that they're ranked last out of the 18 UCI World Tour teams this year.
And just need to be patient I suppose. Tomorrow the climbs are steeper, and far more riders will be dropped since you can't go up 4 climbs in the red, unlike today. If stage 8 doesn't do it, stage 9 will, that day everyone will be found out.
And then we have Stage 12 to look forward to, which will probably be the most fun stage to watch in the Tour, as everyone will come to the final climb of the toughest climb in TdF history together with 20km to go, and then riders will start going one by one until only one remains on the summit. It's truly my favorite kind of stage, everyone comes to one gigantic summit finish climb together and in top shape, and they start peeling off one by one, until there's only one less.
As for the acceleration stuff you mentioned, I don't think it plays that big of a role. Lets say a rider 1 plus bike weigh 80kgs and rider 2 it's 90kg. And lets assume they are accelerating from 40km/h to 55km/h, and perform the acceleration in 3 seconds. Assuming constant acceleration, that's 1.39m/s^2. And now P = F*delta_v = m*a*delta_v = 10kg*1.39*15/3.6. So to perform this acceleration, it requires 57.9W of additional power for the heavier rider, though I made the assumption that power transmission is the same for both riders, rolling resistance is the same for both riders, and CdA is the same for both riders... Actually I made too many assumptions here. The point I was trying to get at is the acceleration is a small part of the power needed in a race, and so a person's inertia isn't all that important. Secondly, what I also wanted to show is that the Cd*A of a rider doesn't change much with weight, as weight is proportional to volume, which is L^3, while surface area is L^2. So if rider 1 has a mass of 80, his area is equal to 18.566, while rider 2 with a mass of 90, has an area of 20.08 (relative terms). So his CdA would be 8.15% higher, instead of 12.5% higher. Not only that, muscle in denser at 1060kg/m^3 vs 960kg/m^3 for the rest of your body. Additionally, the bicycle aerodynamics are the same for riders of different muscle sizes, plus additional fluid dynamics effects, that I'd expect it to be around 4% instead of the initial 12.5% (hopefully that was possible to follow).
I see the advantages of both, and I'm not saying that W/kg is absolute rubbish, I just think that pure wattage is better, and I've read several articles that inspired me to think about it, and in general there was agreement.
I think this is a too low estimate. It's not just volume but also height since competing riders are usually the same bodytype so more weight is related to height as well as muscle mass.
When looking at these pictures, Coquard and Cavendish have significantly lower surface area than Greipel and Sagan.
You can also see that most of the body is above the bike during sprints so every inch of extra body directly affects airflow
And Cavendish can hide behind Greipel but Greipel can't hide behind Cavendish. Combine this with the extra effort required to accelerate mass and I don't see why Watts alone would be a more interesting metric than W/kg, except for flat time trials where everyone lays flat on their bikes and ride constant speed.
It seems a spectator unpluged accidentally the thing which blows air in the inflatable arc. Hopefully, Yates is still in the race, with the white jersey (best young rider).
I dont like such a hard stage finishing in a downhill..... i think it makes the GC guys play it safe as they can always downhill in a bunch and close any 30 seconds gap someone can get in an attack...... When its a hill finish you know that if you break the competition no one can recover , lets see what happens
On July 09 2016 23:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Pfff everyone still together at the fourth climb. Sky's constant tempo killing all action once again. 4 km left for some action and then a descent
There is 0 incentive to go for all in solo attack for the GC guys , the descent is really long and anything you get will be eaten easily , you test the waters abit but thats about it. if it was a hill finish you would see much more action.
On July 09 2016 23:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Pfff everyone still together at the fourth climb. Sky's constant tempo killing all action once again. 4 km left for some action and then a descent
As you were saying lol.
Sky is so scary, looks like it's going to be one of those tours now.
Sky has the best team but not only in its riders, the strategy was perfect, Movistar director can go and spend some time learning from these guys, hats off Froome.
Yeah, I really wish Froome was not first already... It'd be nice if he could lose 10 minutes one day so then it'd actually be exciting. I mean we're down to 13 real GC contenders left at this point, it's already doesn't seem like anyone can challenge Froome.
Really well done for Froome, but this is where it gets difficult. Team Sky is so absurdly strong, and who would have expected Froome to attack on a descent. How much to they pay their riders D:
Oof, that's getting into the territory of you look like a dick, and that fan might be able to press charges... Versus the usual that fan deserved it for acting like a lunatic.
Props to Froome for making an interesting stage! Funny to see Froome in "Sagan" mode taking a bunch of risks on the descents. He's certainly a better bike handler than people like to give him credit for.
On July 09 2016 22:41 bluzi wrote: I dont like such a hard stage finishing in a downhill..... i think it makes the GC guys play it safe as they can always downhill in a bunch and close any 30 seconds gap someone can get in an attack...... When its a hill finish you know that if you break the competition no one can recover , lets see what happens
On July 09 2016 23:54 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Pfff everyone still together at the fourth climb. Sky's constant tempo killing all action once again. 4 km left for some action and then a descent
There is 0 incentive to go for all in solo attack for the GC guys , the descent is really long and anything you get will be eaten easily , you test the waters abit but thats about it. if it was a hill finish you would see much more action.
Yet still it works.
Honestly I don't understand how moves like that work. I can't come close to getting something like that to work when I race. Don't really understand why the rest of the group couldn't pull it back, unless the aero + pedal fun of Froome was just too fast, and nobody in the chase group was willing enough to do it at the front. Feels soooooo weird pedalling that way.
On July 10 2016 00:58 FiWiFaKi wrote: Yeah, I really wish Froome was not first already... It'd be nice if he could lose 10 minutes one day so then it'd actually be exciting. I mean we're down to 13 real GC contenders left at this point, it's already doesn't seem like anyone can challenge Froome.
Really well done for Froome, but this is where it gets difficult. Team Sky is so absurdly strong, and who would have expected Froome to attack on a descent. How much to they pay their riders D:
Pff. Quintana looks just fine to me, he never looked in one bit of difficulty. Too many guys to go for major attacks yet, especially with a downhill. Tomorrow should be more interesting from a GC shakeup, but I think you'll see Froome/Quintana finish near each other, with the edge going to Quintana.
My big concern is whether or not Froome is going to be able to put a chunk into Quintana in the TT. Losing 2-3 minutes would be VERY problematic, good as Quintana is.
“Yesterday I had some pretty bad luck with the crash under the arch but it didn't affect me physically. I'm ok. Today I just tried to hang on. It was a full gas day from start to finish. I was at the limit on the last climb. I'm just happy to retain the white jersey. It would have been nice to have the yellow but Chris Froome will be on the top step in Paris, so it's no shame to be behind him on GC. There's nothing more I could do today. I came to the Tour looking for stages and everything else is a bonus. GC was never an objective. If I have a bad day in the mountains, no stress. I have no pressure from the team to keep this jersey.”
From the tone of this, looks like most people have given up on the GC first place, minus Movistar. And that's what happened, it was Valverde at the front the whole time as Quintana is not the best descender, so in that regard, I suppose it's reasonable that Froome could do it. You're right though Quintana looked alright today, it's not over yet.
Nice ride from Doumalin to get a breakaway win. Pinot...man. Still have no idea what's up with him. He looked really promising in most his races coming in to the tour, and but right now seems to have no form. He should easily be climbing with Doumalin if he was on any reasonable form. Almost picked him, but for the moment I'm not regretting that.
My Dan Martin pick is, so far, turning out WAY better than I imagined it ever would be. See if that can continue, looking strong now.
Interesting ride today from the GC boys. Attacks galore, but nothing really stuck. Wondering if there was some headwind or if guys weren't quite ready to attack and go deep in the red knowing some key stages are coming up. I'm sure we won't see 6+ coming to the line together on Ventoux.
Quintana looked really easy the whole day, but at the same time never tried anything himself. Hopefully that means he was just being smart and saving it for when it really matters, and isn't a sign of him being a little taxed with a good poker face.
Sorry Fiwi. That sucks about Contador. I was pretty optimistic he was going to look fine either today or after the rest day, but clearly not to be. Guess those falls hurt him more than I thought they had, they looked reasonably superficial to me and I thought after he got slightly recovered he would be good to go, but must have been quite a bit worse than he let onto. Bummer for your fantasy team, and really for the Tour in general. Contador animates races nicely, and it would have been fun to see if he could still mix it up with Froomey and NairoMan.
EDIT: Damn coverage today was frustrating as hell to me. It was almost like trying to watch a 5,000m or 10,000m track race where for some reason they always cut to field events for 1/2 the race or more and then only come back when there is the last lap and you don't see how the race unfolded. Same with the finish today. It's one thing to show Doumalin coming across the line winning, but I don't need to see a full minute of Majka v Costa for minor places when Porte is in the middle of attacking the GC group and I sure as hell don't need to fucking see the last 400m of riding for every rider from the breakaway. If you're determined to show every single member of the break finishing...at least use fecking splitscreen for the love of all that is good! >.<
Quintana disappointed me, ok, Arcalis is a stupid highway with not much variation in the % of the slope but still, he could have tried, he was the only one able to follow Froome's accelaration... He is a formidable rider but among all the pure climber like Schleck or Pantani, he is disappointing, I hope he loses the tour against Froome, he is maybe way more elegant and class on a bike but he does not have any panach, a quality that Chris has. Bardet will be once again the french hope after the 1985s victory of Bernard Hinault, Thibault is a fail as usual, Dan Martin is excellent and offensive as expected and finally, Adam Yates surprised me.
On July 12 2016 00:39 stilt wrote: Quintana disappointed me, ok, Arcalis is a stupid highway with not much variation in the % of the slope but still, he could have tried, he was the only one able to follow Froome's accelaration... He is a formidable rider but among all the pure climber like Schleck or Pantani, he is disappointing, I hope he loses the tour against Froome, he is maybe way more elegant and class on a bike but he does not have any panach, a quality that Chris has.
Lol. Sometimes I read stuff and can't help but wonder if we watch the same races. Quintana is always attacking and animating races. Look at Alp'd Huez last year, relentlessly taking risks early trying to crack Froome even when Froome had teammates with him. He's not flashy on downhills, I'll give you that, but Quintana consistently animates when races get into the mountains.
I'm sure he has his reasons for why he played a safe race Sunday. Maybe he could sense that now wasn't the time. Maybe he has something particularly niced planned for later and is saving it. Maybe he was near his limit. Maybe there was headwind making it not worth it. Maybe he is playing mindgames with Froome. Who knows?
Sorry guys, I spent two days with my gf, feels like I've been gone from this thread forever
On the bright side, two more 38km bike rides and a nice hike to some waterfalls (also got a new PR of 1:14 for that 38km, which I'm quite happy with, I'd love to get a sub 1:10 before the end of the summer, though it's quite dependent on traffic and lights and whatnot).
Anyway, unfortunate about Contador for sure, this way at least I don't need to have this false hope of having a chance in fantasy thinking Contador has a chance to get better. I'm not sure how much his injuries played a role though, it's quite possible that he's just struggling, it's not that uncommon for a top guy to just struggle, he did have some sickness right before the Tour. Kind of surprising that the first withdrawal happened on Stage 8.
I haven't watched either of the last two stages, just looked at the classifications on letour, so I think I'll go watch the last 20km~ of the last 2 stages now.
Anyway, from the few interviews I've read and the little I've been keeping up on... My surprises are:
Yates: I had a good feeling about a top 10 for him, but damn, he's been looking great. Purito: This guy always surprises me, I think he's going to retire any year now, or he's going to drop off, but damn, he really delivers every year. He's had 8 years in a row where he's finished 7th or better in a grand tour, very impressive. Bardet: I would have not been surprised at all if Bardet was in Pinots spot, he's doing better than I expected for sure, I suppose I should've trusted him as he did good work in my fantasy last year. Aru: I guess you win Eric, I really expected a bit more. I'll have to look at the stages in closer detail, as 13th is very surprising to me. I'd call it bad form most likely, I think Aru is capable of more, I'll be following him closely, I still think a top 5 is possible. Zakarin: Maybe he didn't recover, or maybe he's not trying since Katusha has another rider? Not looking like the top 5 rider in the Giro.
Besides the obvious Contador and Pinot surprises, and maybe Majka (he's been getting dropped kind of early and not helping Contador or Kreuziger, though maybe he's switched to doing nothing one stage to being 100% for the KoM in the next stage). Oh, and I guess I would have thought Nibali would be 15-25 and not 37, but that's a little thing, outside of that everyone is roughly where I'd expect them to be.
Anyway, I looking forward for the coming battle between Cavendish, Kittel, and Sagan for the green jersey. Also Fantasy is looking interesting, the 8 of you all within 400 points of each other.
On July 12 2016 00:39 stilt wrote: Quintana disappointed me, ok, Arcalis is a stupid highway with not much variation in the % of the slope but still, he could have tried, he was the only one able to follow Froome's accelaration... He is a formidable rider but among all the pure climber like Schleck or Pantani, he is disappointing, I hope he loses the tour against Froome, he is maybe way more elegant and class on a bike but he does not have any panach, a quality that Chris has.
Lol. Sometimes I read stuff and can't help but wonder if we watch the same races. Quintana is always attacking and animating races. Look at Alp'd Huez last year, relentlessly taking risks early trying to crack Froome even when Froome had teammates with him. He's not flashy on downhills, I'll give you that, but Quintana consistently animates when races get into the mountains.
I'm sure he has his reasons for why he played a safe race Sunday. Maybe he could sense that now wasn't the time. Maybe he has something particularly niced planned for later and is saving it. Maybe he was near his limit. Maybe there was headwind making it not worth it. Maybe he is playing mindgames with Froome. Who knows?
At least for me Quintana's perception never ceases to amaze. He essentially never dropped further than 10cm from back of Froome except for once when he was caught by surprise.
On July 12 2016 00:39 stilt wrote: Quintana disappointed me, ok, Arcalis is a stupid highway with not much variation in the % of the slope but still, he could have tried, he was the only one able to follow Froome's accelaration... He is a formidable rider but among all the pure climber like Schleck or Pantani, he is disappointing, I hope he loses the tour against Froome, he is maybe way more elegant and class on a bike but he does not have any panach, a quality that Chris has.
Lol. Sometimes I read stuff and can't help but wonder if we watch the same races. Quintana is always attacking and animating races. Look at Alp'd Huez last year, relentlessly taking risks early trying to crack Froome even when Froome had teammates with him. He's not flashy on downhills, I'll give you that, but Quintana consistently animates when races get into the mountains.
I'm sure he has his reasons for why he played a safe race Sunday. Maybe he could sense that now wasn't the time. Maybe he has something particularly niced planned for later and is saving it. Maybe he was near his limit. Maybe there was headwind making it not worth it. Maybe he is playing mindgames with Froome. Who knows?
Taking risks at Alpes d'Huez? I don't want to be rude but since how many times do you follow cycling races? For a climber who wants the top of the general classement, Quintana is exceptionaly attentist, his only attacks on the tour 2015 were in the last 5 km of La Touissuire were he took 32 seconds of Froome despite a not very hard slope in the last km, he could have take more earlier, at leadt, he should have try because yeah, there is no risks at attacking at 5 km in such a pass, absolutely no risks of threatening Froome! The second attack come on the last stage in the last pass where there was no way Froome will lose more than the 2 minutes and sth needed... Btw every ex cycling racers I heard commenting ( Jalaber, Jacky Durand, Virenque, Cedric Vasseur) are surprised considering his exceptionnal season, based of this, he is probably stronger than the past years and there is no biais against Quintana, almost in France wants his victory over Froome ^^ You should really watch some Andy Schleck or Pantani stuffs, these guys were only good in riding and they always tried to gain time on these sort of stages. In consequence, they were attacking a lot and were able to do long run like the raid of Schleck on the Izoard and Galibier in 2011 and the multiple exploits that Pantani had done in such configurations. But I don't even ask Quintana to do such stuffs with the strengh of team Sky (even if T mobile was very strong too against Pantani), but when everyone attacks, try something too, Froome managed to beat everyone except him in his accelaration; he could have tried something at this moment, if he loses the tour for 10 seconds, that would be bad. Froome, when he is not the favorite of a race or when he is second, attacks a lot, same goes for Contador, not Quintana, this is obvious.
I'm hoping for a Quintana win here but I feel that he can also take more risks and has this extra level that for some reason he just doesn't tap into. Now I haven't been watching as many races as you all probably have so I probably don't know much ha. My prediction (or hope) is that Quintana goes into overdrive possibly on the last week and wins the damn TdF once and for all, granted he stays on Froome's wheel like he did last year, which I know he can.
And yea poor Sagan lol I feel like everyone in that breakaway wanted him to lose.
Beautiful, that struggle by Ettix when they saw Sagan go. Man, these things hurt for the sprinter teams, but absolutely fantastic performance. I guess he can thank Froome for that win:
"It seems apparent that Peter Sagan was very kindly preparing to usher his less heralded team-mate Maciej Bodnar through for the stage win, but was surprised to see Chris Froome still contesting matters behind him and had to continue riding to ensure the stage went to somebody on the Tinkoff team."
That was insane! Sagan riding all day yesterday (!) just blows away from everyone in the front of the peloton today. It's like Messi, it's so great to watch such a masterful talent. Glorious.
Froome so smart and strong as well to seize that moment and being in front all day as well. Really made me a fan of his today! Quintana is done for, he has no chance to beat such a complete rider. He should've been on Froome's wheel all day because his team is clearly not good enough on these stages. Movistar couldn't even help the sprint teams chase... I predict a single succesful attack in the final mountain stage from him and that's it. Meanwhile Froome gains time every chance he's got and will destroy him in TT. We need a new challenger for Froome next year. My hopes are Kruijswijk and Dumoulin
Now that I've managed to chill a bit, this looked more like a Belgian classic than a stage of TDF, 47.2Kph is crazy (although there was tailwind for a good part of the stage). Sagan didn't win yesterday but he more than made up for that with this win, essentially sentencing the green jersey fight.
And can be said about Froome? I'm sure people won't be talking about robot and boring Froome now. He 'only' won 12 secs to everybody else but did so in a way no one ever saw it coming. And the best thing for him is that it wasn't that big of an effort, it was pretty much 12Km flat-out but a guy like him probably will fully recover for tomorrow while intimidating even more his opponents.
Keep in mind that last year Quintana gained 30 second on Froome on Stage 19 and 1:20 on Stage 20, and Froome was going all out. So I would not be so quick to pounce, this year he has lost a lot less time as well.
Also Purito losing over a minute today is pretty big, he went from 5th to 12th place in GC.
But yes, Sagan my favorite rider strikes again
edit: Also, potential bad news for tomorrow:
"Chris Froome extended his lead on the day before the race heads up the Ventoux, although tomorrow’s iconic stage may be truncated by six kilometres due to the dangers posed by high winds. Nairo Quintana will be desperately hoping the race goes all the way up the Giant of Provence”, it seems extremely unlikely to happen with winds of over 100 kilometres per hour being reported at the summit. Tune in tomorrow, for what promises to be a fascinating day’s racing, whatever the route."
Well, it's called Mount Windy for a reason. But this is meant to be the best stage of the Tour, grr. I really hope they don't.
This TDF is by no means over, Quintana is still only 35 secs behind, it will be a matter of how much can Quintana win on the high mountains and not lose to Froome in the TT.
Tomorrow stage is reduced, the 6 last kilometers are cancelled. The director of the Tour has confirmed that on french tv. It was the perfect climb for Quintana.
Yea!!!! Sagan is fun. Can't believe he pulled that off, but he picked a perfect spot in the crosswinds to make it work. Crafty dude. Froomepowa probably didn't hurt him either, and was kinda fun seeing Froome trying to give him a little go in the sprint.
Speaking of Froome, gotta give the guy credit for being right in the front and taking advantage of that move. It's clever, and especially so if he did it because Quintana wasn't on his wheel. It's too bad that's the kind of move that Quintana will never even be able to consider, completely impossible for a 5'6" guy that likely has like 375w or something max for FTP.
That said, only time will tell if these efforts are worth it. Both the downhill and today were very aggressive efforts for 10+ minutes for marginal time gains. Every second counts, but if this catches up with him in the next two days...or even near the end it could prove costly. Making these moves is different than doing them in the mountains. In the case of the downhill the chase was shared by a group of riders, and today Quintana didn't have to do any work and smartly didn't try to do anything solo either. On the other hand, if you go gangbusters in the mountains, everybody else goes at their absolute limit too, so you gain time working just as hard as everybody else. In the case of these two Froome moves, Froome worked MUCH harder than any other GC contender.
Tomorrow for me is a big day, even with the unfortunately shortened stage of Ventoux. If Quintana can't get seperation from Froome and a growing gap as he moves away, or heaven forbid the opposite occurs, then I'm about ready to hand the Tour to Froome. Quintana has to beat him in the mountains, and beat him badly over the course of them, as Froome is likely to gain at least 1:00-2:00 minutes in the TT. I'd say if Quintana comes out of Friday's TT down more than 3:00 he has no chance. 2:00 range I give him a slim margin. 1:00 range with a decisive advantage on Ventoux and we have ourselves an interesting tour.
Yeah I dunno about that attack, if I knew that I'd gain 12 seconds for that effort as Froome, I probably wouldn't have done it.
Eric, my man, Quintana likes to wait for the opportune moment to strike. Also don't underestimate his TT, in the Tour de Romandie, he got 6th place in the ITT, a 15km one, and obtained the same time as Froome. He won the Route du Sud ITT of 13.4km (yes, I realize the competition was not the best), and got 2nd on the Vuelta al País Vasco ITT second to Contador, and beating the likes of.... Well a hell of a good riders: http://www.steephill.tv/vuelta-al-pais-vasco/
I'd be super shocked if Froome managed to take more than 90 seconds off of Quintana, I think realistically it'll be 30-45 or so seconds on that 37.5km/h. Mont Ventoux has no urgency imo, sure it'd be nice to get a few seconds, but far from the end of the world, Quintana has shown he's able to follow Froome's wheel on any climb, and the GC race has still hardly begun in terms of actual stages.
1) The toughest climb of the Tour will now be the Forclaz-Emosson duo, which is a 2,000 meter elevation gain climb, 7%+ the entire way up, with a tiny break half way through. The higher you go, the steeper this thing gets, and it's absolutely brutal, the more I look at this climb, the prettier it gets.
2) Joux Plane is essentially Alpe d'Huez 2.0, naturally people will give it 100%, and since there isn't another day to worry about, nobody will be thinking about the energy they should save, and thus every rider but one will break.
3) An ITT that has 5 of the 17km at 8%+, with another 3km at 4%+, get ready for a brutal stage. Due to the constant tempo changes, calculating it a bit incorrectly will leave you no power, and a couple minutes down in the GC.
4) Bettex and Bisanne, two climbs that are 9.8km at 8.0% and 12.4km, and 8.2% respectively. A summit finish and two of these climbs in one day, looks like a turbocharged Stage 9.
5) Gotta soften up those legs to make the four stages I just described more difficult. Well, why not give the riders a stage with hardly a single flat kilometer in it. A nice take on Stage 8, not really sure which one I'd consider more difficult.
Anyway, point is, thus far we've had two mountain stages which were probably easier than four of the aforementioned, and a Mount Windy will show the weak once again, but I don't think it's a necessary point to attack, and I think the fact that there's an ITT the next day, I'd probably tend to be very cautious here, and try to save my energy as much as I can.
Sagan is a fkin legend: "When we were in the break away I told them we're too strong, they never gona catch us. It was crazy"
I can't say that much for Froome. Props to him for jumping on the situation and making the race more interesting but spending that much energy for 11 seconds is not justifiable from my perspective. We know he drops minutes in last week. I think Quintana is under no pressure right now, he knows 35-40 seconds is nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if he never attacked until last few climbs.
Not even a fan of Froome, but wauw that was a disgrace - can't believe the pictures of Froome running up. It was caused by a motorcycle stopping (probably due to spectators). Absurd. They have to somehow neutralize it right?
EDIT: I don't see any feasible way for them to do it though. I don't think there is anything in the rules.
On July 15 2016 00:03 Ghostcom wrote: Not even a fan of Froome, but wauw that was a disgrace - can't believe the pictures of Froome running up. It was caused by a motorcycle stopping (probably due to spectators). Absurd.
Yeah, really sad Certainly the spectators in the way. Sucks a lot for Porte too.
In all of this, easy to forget just how destroyed Quintana was today, being beaten by 6 other people on a climb (and would have been 8).
Well, this stuff happens every year in some way - some kind of mechanical, crash, crowd stuff (for example Yates could have likely earned some time if it were not for the Flamme Rouge falling due to spectator unplugging the inflatable the other stage).
So yeah, it's something that's extremely difficult to deal with in TdF, since you can't just monitor 200km of road like that, and it sucks that you can lose two minutes like this when you work every day to make these incremental gains. The more attention that's brought to sabotage, the more of it will be done, so it's tough. Either way, this is the world of cycling, and we have a race on our hands.
On July 15 2016 00:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I think Froome just had a mental breakdown after the crash
Why would you go running as new bikes are behind you not in front
I dunno, cars go faster than bikes up a hill (supposedly), so for every meter he ran up, he would improve on that distance by car speed - his speed. I think he was just flustered, no idea what to do, you just don't expect this shit.
Really just too bad, Froome has been doing a much better job than in the past being likeable to the fans and stuff. Also, fuck the people who want the bike weight floor limit to go down. These are 15lb bikes, and they become unrideable from things that are hardly falls. Completely impractical, and it's important that bicycles remain practical bicycles for normal people. The TdF would have no fan base if it was using some weird concept bikes or something /rant.
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
As usual, the tour is full of retards. Terrible organization, a bunch of idiots as spectators, it is depressing. The jury has done the good call and the rules have been applied. When the road is blocked, the climber is protected.
On July 15 2016 00:55 stilt wrote: As usual, the tour is full of retards.
?
Name me one sport where there isn't 1+ unintelligent person in the live audience? But when you watch cyclists go up a big climb, you can see the difference between cycling and every other big sport in the world (the proximity of spectators to cyclists).
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
Time for a massive controversy boys. If that's the case and Froome wins the TdF by less than 2 minutes, his win will be questioned for as long as he rides.
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
That's was the only possible solution, even in the Yates case he was given the time he had on the main group at the moment of the crash. I'm glad the organisation made the only right choice (in my view)
On July 15 2016 00:55 stilt wrote: As usual, the tour is full of retards.
?
Name me one sport where there isn't 1+ unintelligent person in the live audience? But when you watch cyclists go up a big climb, you can see the difference between cycling and every other big sport in the world (the proximity of spectators to cyclists).
I was at the Alpe last year and I can tell you that there are a lot of idiots who act in dangerous ways with pretty wide movements in very narrow place. They threw beers on climbers, were generally totally drunk. Accidents like this will happen again in the Tour. For the others sports, this is not really a problem as you say, people are not that close.
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
Time for a massive controversy boys. If that's the case and Froome wins the TdF by less than 2 minutes, his win will be questioned for as long as he rides.
And what if he lost for less than 1:30? It can be argued either way, except that he (and Porte + Mollema) were the ones ho would have gotten penalised for something exterior to the race and that the race have the responsibility to prevent
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
That's was the only possible solution, even in the Yates case he was given the time he had on the main group at the moment of the crash. I'm glad the organisation made the only right choice (in my view)
People get screwed over by the spectators frequently, and nothing is ever done about these... But now all of the sudden it happens to the top bunch, and the rules get selectively applied. I know otherwise it'd have a fairly large impact on the Tour, but I don't like preferential treatment of the riders.
The Yates incident was different, as it was at the time seen that it was due to a mechanical failure of the TdF, this is a spectator.
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
That's was the only possible solution, even in the Yates case he was given the time he had on the main group at the moment of the crash. I'm glad the organisation made the only right choice (in my view)
People get screwed over by the spectators frequently, and nothing is ever done about these... But now all of the sudden it happens to the top bunch, and the rules get selectively applied. I know otherwise it'd have a fairly large impact on the Tour, but I don't like preferential treatment of the riders.
The Yates incident was different, as it was at the time seen that it was due to a mechanical failure of the TdF, this is a spectator.
That would be 1 min 40 lost. And the rules were not as selectives as you might think, there were no room on the road, in this condition, a second chance can be offered. Moreover, in the last km, barriers should have been here, the organization failed.
On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF
Come on man, don't be silly.
There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
Mollema still on 9 seconds from Yates though, coincidence or did they not change his time?
Apparently they gave Froome the same time as Mollema on this stage. So Mollema is still 56s behind Froome like he was at the start of the race, but gains time on Yates who finished later than him today
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
That's was the only possible solution, even in the Yates case he was given the time he had on the main group at the moment of the crash. I'm glad the organisation made the only right choice (in my view)
People get screwed over by the spectators frequently, and nothing is ever done about these... But now all of the sudden it happens to the top bunch, and the rules get selectively applied. I know otherwise it'd have a fairly large impact on the Tour, but I don't like preferential treatment of the riders.
The Yates incident was different, as it was at the time seen that it was due to a mechanical failure of the TdF, this is a spectator.
Oh well, it's done now.
Agree 100% with your post, when you judge something diferent because of the rider then the rules can be bend or selctive in anytime. Froome is the best in this TdF but that decision was a bad decision.
On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF
Come on man, don't be silly.
There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
DeGendt and Sagan both said (without being asked about it) that they were very shocked and surprised about the lack of fences until 200m to the goal. DeGendt even said, that he was surprised when he suddenly saw the goal and noticed it was time to sprint. And both clearly blamed the TdF for this complete lack of safety, without talking about the Froome incident, but simply from their own experience in the race. And you are saying this isnt in in TdF control? Okay...
On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF
Come on man, don't be silly.
There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
I follow the Tour since 1998 and cycling competition in general, I don't remember seeing such a case. A moto which causes a fall of a top climber in one of the big 3 weeks race because of a too high numbers of spectators... Pretty sure it never happened and there is no clear regulation about this. Beside, Quintana can still be happy, he would have probably lost 10 more seconds if this accident did not happen.
On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF
Come on man, don't be silly.
There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
DeGendt and Sagan both said (without being asked about it) that they were very shocked and surprised about the lack of fences until 200m to the goal. DeGendt even said, that he was surprised when he suddenly saw the goal and noticed it was time to sprint. And both clearly blamed the TdF for this complete lack of safety, without talking about the Froome incident, but simply from their own experience in the race. And you are saying this isnt in in TdF control? Okay...
Yeah they could easily add more fences. Marathons do 42km of fencing
In the end though, it's very hard to stop a determined retard from fucking things up I guess.
On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF
Come on man, don't be silly.
There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
DeGendt and Sagan both said (without being asked about it) that they were very shocked and surprised about the lack of fences until 200m to the goal. DeGendt even said, that he was surprised when he suddenly saw the goal and noticed it was time to sprint. And both clearly blamed the TdF for this complete lack of safety, without talking about the Froome incident, but simply from their own experience in the race. And you are saying this isnt in in TdF control? Okay...
That (FiWiFaKi) is exactly what I think, it's impossible for them to control everything especially the spectators. Do you know that the Yates crash was also cause by a spectator how accidentally unplugged the power of the flame rouge? They also can't control crashes and the weather and whatnot but whenever something that is out of their control affects the race they should make the decisions based on the truth of the sport, which in this case is that the 3 riders in front were gaining time that was not expected to decrease.
100% disagree with the jury. Obviously they gave Froome preferential treatment. So many incidents with spectators/motos happen, but nothing is ever done. Everyone should be treated the same imo.
On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF
Come on man, don't be silly.
There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
DeGendt and Sagan both said (without being asked about it) that they were very shocked and surprised about the lack of fences until 200m to the goal. DeGendt even said, that he was surprised when he suddenly saw the goal and noticed it was time to sprint. And both clearly blamed the TdF for this complete lack of safety, without talking about the Froome incident, but simply from their own experience in the race. And you are saying this isnt in in TdF control? Okay...
That (FiWiFaKi) is exactly what I think, it's impossible for them to control everything especially the spectators. Do you know that the Yates crash was also cause by a spectator how accidentally unplugged the power of the flame rouge? They also can't control crashes and the weather and whatnot but whenever something that is out of their control affects the race they should make the decisions based on the truth of the sport, which in this case is that the 3 riders in front were gaining time that was not expected to decrease.
Yep, but as far as I know, that was not known during the time of the decision.
Either way, we can agree it's a grey situation, and not a clear application of the rules.
My perspective is that the incorrect application of the rules, and that it also goes against the spirit of the sport. Especially with the post you quoted Gjhc, I think that you could start to say that flat tires are the fault of the organizers for not making the sure the roads are good enough or something, and I think we'd all agree that would be bad thinking.
The only justification here is that the barriers started in a different place than they usually do (and whether the organizers used the same due diligence they normally do), that should be the only factor that weighs in on whether Froome and Porte get the same time. I don't have the exact rulebook, and since the decision was in favor of Froome and Porte, I suppose that it was enough of a factor for them, but I don't think it should have.
Well Froome's frame broke because a tour moto hit him from behind at the crash. So in the end it was not just a spectator that caused him to lose so much.
On July 15 2016 01:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Well Froome's frame broke because a tour moto hit him from behind at the crash. So in the end it was not just a spectator that caused him to lose so much.
Yep I just read that on letour, that information does swing the decision towards Froome for me from the rule perspective, however if I was a benevolent dictator of the TdF and I wanted to make make the sport as good as possible, I wouldn't have done any time neutralizations. Definitely super nasty one to apply rules to because Porte's didn't break because of that, but if you didn't give them the same time... Yeah rough.
And poor Henao losing time he otherwise wouldn't lose if he didn't go out to help Froome. And that was the 7th GC guy.
On July 15 2016 01:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Quintana also magically gained third place again putting Mollema in fourth. Not sure where his extra time comes from
From what I remember, I seem to recall a shot of the 5'24" group getting slowed down by the crash and the standing motorbikes there.
On July 15 2016 01:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Quintana also magically gained third place again putting Mollema in fourth. Not sure where his extra time comes from
From what I remember, I seem to recall a shot of the 5'24" group getting slowed down by the crash and the standing motorbikes there.
Well yeah but it's not like Mollema didn't lose time falling down. So Quintana gains time for getting slowed down but Mollema gets nothing for getting hurt and having to stand up and start again. Weird imo.
-Froome, Porte, and Bauke gain 19 seconds on GC -Dan Martin and Barguil lose 1'06" -Kreuziger loses 1'27', and truly pushing him out of GC running -Henao loses time to help Froome
On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF
Come on man, don't be silly.
There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
DeGendt and Sagan both said (without being asked about it) that they were very shocked and surprised about the lack of fences until 200m to the goal. DeGendt even said, that he was surprised when he suddenly saw the goal and noticed it was time to sprint. And both clearly blamed the TdF for this complete lack of safety, without talking about the Froome incident, but simply from their own experience in the race. And you are saying this isnt in in TdF control? Okay...
That (FiWiFaKi) is exactly what I think, it's impossible for them to control everything especially the spectators. Do you know that the Yates crash was also cause by a spectator how accidentally unplugged the power of the flame rouge? They also can't control crashes and the weather and whatnot but whenever something that is out of their control affects the race they should make the decisions based on the truth of the sport, which in this case is that the 3 riders in front were gaining time that was not expected to decrease.
Yep, but as far as I know, that was not known during the time of the decision.
Either way, we can agree it's a grey situation, and not a direct application of the rules.
My perspective is that the incorrect application of the rules, and that it also goes against the spirit of the sport. Especially with the post you quoted Gjhc, I think that you could start to say that flat tires are the fault of the organizers for not making the sure the roads are good enough or something, and I think we'd all agree that would be bad thinking.
The only justification here is that the barriers started in a different place than they usually do (and whether the organizers used the same due diligence they normally do), that should be the only factor that weighs in on whether Froome and Porte get the same time. I don't have the exact rulebook, and since the decision was in favor of Froome and Porte, I suppose that it was enough of a factor for them, but I don't think it should have.
On July 15 2016 01:58 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Quintana also magically gained third place again putting Mollema in fourth. Not sure where his extra time comes from
From what I remember, I seem to recall a shot of the 5'24" group getting slowed down by the crash and the standing motorbikes there.
Well yeah but it's not like Mollema didn't lose time falling down. So Quintana gains time for getting slowed down but Mollema gets nothing for getting hurt and having to stand up and start again. Weird imo.
Yeah, it just gets so messy here as you can see, just give free time to everybody while you're at it, lol.
The more that TdF is about performance and the time at the finish line, and less like figure skating, the better off it'll be. Really sucks that these things happen, shit like this just kills so much hype for me.
On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF
Come on man, don't be silly.
There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
DeGendt and Sagan both said (without being asked about it) that they were very shocked and surprised about the lack of fences until 200m to the goal. DeGendt even said, that he was surprised when he suddenly saw the goal and noticed it was time to sprint. And both clearly blamed the TdF for this complete lack of safety, without talking about the Froome incident, but simply from their own experience in the race. And you are saying this isnt in in TdF control? Okay...
That (FiWiFaKi) is exactly what I think, it's impossible for them to control everything especially the spectators. Do you know that the Yates crash was also cause by a spectator how accidentally unplugged the power of the flame rouge? They also can't control crashes and the weather and whatnot but whenever something that is out of their control affects the race they should make the decisions based on the truth of the sport, which in this case is that the 3 riders in front were gaining time that was not expected to decrease.
Yep, but as far as I know, that was not known during the time of the decision.
Either way, we can agree it's a grey situation, and not a direct application of the rules.
My perspective is that the incorrect application of the rules, and that it also goes against the spirit of the sport. Especially with the post you quoted Gjhc, I think that you could start to say that flat tires are the fault of the organizers for not making the sure the roads are good enough or something, and I think we'd all agree that would be bad thinking.
The only justification here is that the barriers started in a different place than they usually do (and whether the organizers used the same due diligence they normally do), that should be the only factor that weighs in on whether Froome and Porte get the same time. I don't have the exact rulebook, and since the decision was in favor of Froome and Porte, I suppose that it was enough of a factor for them, but I don't think it should have.
WHAT THE FUCK?!? Never seen such thing happen in my life.
On jury decision, I can't agree with it whatever way i look at it. If it wasn't for Froome this would never have happened. Sagan got bulldozed by motorbike in Vuelta last year, Flecha claims he had same happen to him with a car, still nothing given. Flexing the rules for specific person is not just.
On July 15 2016 03:47 Skynx wrote: WHAT THE FUCK?!? Never seen such thing happen in my life.
On jury decision, I can't agree with it whatever way i look at it. If it wasn't for Froome this would never have happened. Sagan got bulldozed by motorbike in Vuelta last year, Flecha claims he had same happen to him with a car, still nothing given. Flexing the rules for specific person is not just.
Hmm I guess you are right if you look at it that way. Anybody other than Froome or Quintana would probably get nothing.
Still remember that Fletcha crash well as it was also with dutchman Hoogerland who got thrown in barbed wire. The ASO really handled that one super bad, Hoogerland had huge injuries and had to sue for years to get compensation. They were leading quite far so Fletcha got denied a opportunity to win
Of course it's a grey area, else we wouldn't be having this discussion
First I don't think that saying that it was never done before is a bad argument, if something can be done better then it should. Second, this is a stage race, in fletcha or sagan (and I add the van Avermaet in San Sebastian last year) cases it's about a single stage/day, this is not SC2 where you can resume from replay. Third, I never said it was the organisation fault, only that it can be argued that way, if you see my last post I explicitly say they can't control everything. I don't even blame ASO for the lack of barriers, the stage wasn't even supposed to end there.
The point is that in the context of a stage race, and in a situation where a few riders IN THE LAST KM (sry for caps only want to make it stand out) get knocked by fans/motos, it makes no sense to benefit the riders who happened to not be affected by the accident when there's a very clear perspective of what was going to happen until the end of the stage, which was that Froome Porte and Mollema would gain time.
Just a last though, what if it wasn't an accident and the spectator who caused that 'accidentally' made the crash happen?
Edit: can anyone explain the Mollema and time bonuses situation?
Mollema did not get time compensation. When race ended normally he was 9' behind Yates on provisional results, it hasn't changed. Only two to blame in this situation are hooligans and race jury.
On July 15 2016 04:30 Gjhc wrote: Of course it's a grey area, else we wouldn't be having this discussion
First I don't think that saying that it was never done before is a bad argument, if something can be done better then it should. Second, this is a stage race, in fletcha or sagan (and I add the van Avermaet in San Sebastian last year) cases it's about a single stage/day, this is not SC2 where you can resume from replay. Third, I never said it was the organisation fault, only that it can be argued that way, if you see my last post I explicitly say they can't control everything. I don't even blame ASO for the lack of barriers, the stage wasn't even supposed to end there.
The point is that in the context of a stage race, and in a situation where a few riders IN THE LAST KM (sry for caps only want to make it stand out) get knocked by fans/motos, it makes no sense to benefit the riders who happened to not be affected by the accident when there's a very clear perspective of what was going to happen until the end of the stage, which was that Froome Porte and Mollema would gain time.
Just a last though, what if it wasn't an accident and the spectator who caused that 'accidentally' made the crash happen?
Edit: can anyone explain the Mollema and time bonuses situation?
Porte and Froome receive same time as Mollema, Valverde + Quintana + TJVG get same time as the main group of GC contenders because supposedly getting slowed down by the crash ahead.
As for you argument, I don't really agree with you. Look at what happened to Porte at the beginning of the Tour - get a flat and he was punished for it. Logically it's very obvious that if this didn't happen he would make it with the main group and would lose little to no time. Instead of inferring what would happen, let it happen, and make the time at the finish line count, no questions.
The time I don't agree with the approach is when it would completely compromise the race, i.e. a massive crash that leaves dozens injured, an obstacle in the road like a train or sabotage affecting a large group of people like spectators breaking glass bottles / throwing road spikes right before the peloton comes.
As unfortunate as it could be, but if a spectator straight up pushes someone off of a bike, I don't think it should be neutralized. The fact of whether there was intent or not of the spectators should not impact the result of the race... Is a spectator intentionally running in front of someone to not let them pass that much different than running next to them and getting your handlebars caught on their flag? (Certainly it should affect the punishment for the spectator). I don't think Froome and Porte losing 1-2 minutes would be anywhere close to doing that.
It's just not what cycling is about, when some cyclist screws you over like that time Armstrong went over the grass to take the short cut to avoid a crash, you don't get compensated. Spectators are as much a part of cycling as players dropping on the ground for no reason in soccer/football. As a small technicality, I don't believe they passed the 1km marker yet (maybe 20m away), and the fences started at 500 meters, not 200 meters, so to provide some clarity to the smaller details, even though it shouldn't change anything much.
When the organizers mess up, neutralizing still isn't best, but it's more reasonable because at least the damage they cause has no bias towards certain riders, they save face in the eyes of the public with angry people at them, and it's not really a "racing accident", which spectators (imo), the road, other riders, etc are... But the camera crew and other cars less so. Still, even these situations I wouldn't neutralize - they are unfortunate events, but having a process to continuously lower the chances of these things happening while giving people an excellent viewing experience is best imo. In my viewpoint, the only time I'd justify a neutralization for a small incident is on a case by case basis when foul play is suspected between teams, whether that's a rider cutting someone off intentionally, someone else's' team car trying to hit you, and so forth - but even that can be handled by large penalties for the teams, like team disqualification from the Tour, etc.
Spectators are not part of the race, they just happen to be really close to it due to obvious reasons. And you just now said '...the spectators should not impact the result of the race...'. They shouldn't and now they did, can it be ignored?
Is a spectator intentionally running in front of someone to not let them pass that much different than running next to them and getting your handlebars caught on their flag?
That was not my point. Let's say a Quintana fan makes it look like an accident and causes Froome to crash. We are talking about a very difficult situation, you never know why the spectator did it, and then a rider can lose everything he worked for because someone external to the race wanted to influence it's result. That's why I think that anything spectator related, especially at such a critical stage of the race should have zero tolerance and despite we never knowing the exact result that would happen at the finish line, it's better to make it the closest to the real thing than making a few riders lose time because of the public. And again I only agree with the decision because of all the factors, not just because it was spectator/moto related.
The puncture thing is totally different. Porte and BMC are the only ones responsible for the type of tires they use, of course everyone wants to use the ones with lower rolling resistance, and sometimes crap happens. The equipment each rider uses is indeed part of the race. If Coquard had a slightly better bike/equipment (be it tyres, frame, wheels, helmet, skinsuit) he would have won the other stage, yet he didn't have and lost.
"The fact of whether there was intent or not of the spectators should not impact the result of the race"
What I am saying here is that it doesn't matter whether the spectator did it intentionally or accidentally, both results should lead to the same thing. So what I am saying, is the action taken in both instances should be the same (don't neutralize).
Because of this, your next statement isn't in line with what I'm arguing. One of the reasons why I'm saying accident outcome = intentional outcome, is like you said, making it too difficult to tell apart, and we don't want to make TdF feel like a court case. A Quintana fan could push Froome over, much like how someone else could go shoot someone they don't like. However, a hopefully majority group of nice spectators keeping things in check, harsh penalties, security staff, and barriers where people get too rowdy is hopefully sufficient to keep them at a minimum.
You argue it's best to keep it closest to the real thing, which I agree with, but in my eyes, real thing means people getting to the finish line when they do.... Otherwise you start playing figure skating, and trying to subjectively judge the race.
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
Time for a massive controversy boys. If that's the case and Froome wins the TdF by less than 2 minutes, his win will be questioned for as long as he rides.
No it won't. There is nothing asterisk about that at all, and in my book it's the only remotebly reasonable decision to make. Dipshit organizers couldn't even put barriers up from 1km to go on a summit finish of a hugely iconic and important climb on Bastille day, that had been shortened (further forcing spectators tighter together). That's just downright assinine and incompetent race organization.
This wasn't 30km from the finish. This was within 1k. They put barriers up normally at 3k on big climbs like Alp D'Huez. They only had the last 500m here.
Neither Froome, Porte, or Mollema were in any way responsible for that crash. That crash was caused by race organizers. You can't possibly penalize riders for that. The only part that is even remotely questionable would be taking the time at 1km as opposed to neutralizing time for the entire stage, but taking time at 1km is pretty damn fair. No chance the time for any rider varies by more than 3-5 seconds at the finish played out normally than the gaps from 1k.
Utter incompetence today by the tour organization, but at least didn't pull a USGA and at least made the only reasonable ruling.
On July 15 2016 05:29 Gjhc wrote: The puncture thing is totally different. Porte and BMC are the only ones responsible for the type of tires they use, of course everyone wants to use the ones with lower rolling resistance, and sometimes crap happens. The equipment each rider uses is indeed part of the race. If Coquard had a slightly better bike/equipment (be it tyres, frame, wheels, helmet, skinsuit) he would have won the other stage, yet he didn't have and lost.
The bolded part sums up my argument beautifully.
Crap happens. What would happen if we neutralized races due to mechanicals? Everyone would ride the flimsiest bikes imaginable just to improve the efficiency of their bikes 100%. What would happen if contact with a spectator was neutralized? Well people would maybe take corners very sharply and near spectators, would have no need to have self-awareness of what's around them, because oh, someone was accidentally too close, and now I don't need to push on this climb all of the sudden. This would be the most abusable thing ever, and every case would create drama as the jury would have to come to some decision about whether this rider had enough due diligence in his riding.
So, like you said, crap happens, sucks for everyone - but neutralizing situations becomes too messy, not what most people would like to associate with cycling. The 3km sprinting rule works for sprints very well, and if there was a set in stone rule with no ambiguity for mountain finishes like here, then great.... But mountain stages don't work the same, and I don't think you can do something like that without really taking away from the cycling.
On July 15 2016 01:06 Gjhc wrote: You can argue that the lack of security is also a failure of the TdF
Come on man, don't be silly.
There's stuff in TdF control, and there is stuff that isn't. Spectators are not. They have a bit more security than they've ever had, these climbs have always been like this, open to the spectator. Either they fail on a daily basis (because their security is the same), or the spectators are out of TdF control, and the best they can do is encourage good behavior, punish bad, and take reasonable preventive measures to lower the chances a bit.
No. Just flat out no. This is nonsense.
I would agree that obviously you cannot protect the entire stage. That would be beyond absurd to imagine. However, this was in the FINAL KILOMETER. If it would have happened 7km out, or 20km out, or 100km out I'm right there with you. But this was in the last kilometer. Normally major climbs have barriers in the last 3km. 500 meters here today. This knowing that the climb had been shortened by 6km, on a major french holiday, packing overwhelming spectator numbers into about half the usual space.
This was not out of control spectators or dumb-asses. This was too many people in one place and the incompetence of the race organizer to realize the obvious problems it would cause.
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
Time for a massive controversy boys. If that's the case and Froome wins the TdF by less than 2 minutes, his win will be questioned for as long as he rides.
No it won't. There is nothing asterisk about that at all, and in my book it's the only remotebly reasonable decision to make. Dipshit organizers couldn't even put barriers up from 1km to go on a summit finish of a hugely iconic and important climb on Bastille day, that had been shortened (further forcing spectators tighter together). That's just downright assinine and incompetent race organization.
This wasn't 30km from the finish. This was within 1k. They put barriers up normally at 3k on big climbs like Alp D'Huez. They only had the last 500m here.
Neither Froome, Porte, or Mollema were in any way responsible for that crash. That crash was caused by race organizers. You can't possibly penalize riders for that. The only part that is even remotely questionable would be taking the time at 1km as opposed to neutralizing time for the entire stage, but taking time at 1km is pretty damn fair. No chance the time for any rider varies by more than 3-5 seconds at the finish played out normally than the gaps from 1k.
Utter incompetence today by the tour organization, but at least didn't pull a USGA and at least made the only reasonable ruling.
The internet seems to have varying opinions, and people having different opinions on these things is what controversy is.
Either way, using the rulebook and past precedents, decision is fine (if I was to nullify the crash, I'd probably do the same as they did), but philosophically to me, I don't think it's a good decision. I have a feeling there will be disagreement in every post of mine you read today D:
Ok my bad misinterpreting that sentence. I guess the difference is that you think that it's ok for public to interfere while I don't and I don't think we'll reach a consensus here.
For me sport is about seeing who's the best physically/mentally/teamwork and when applicable technologically. And yes sometimes there's luck involved, but it's luck within the rules and the normal course of the competition. In this case Froome Porte and Mollema were the strongest and were going to gain around 20secs (if not more) on the line, I think that was obvious. A spectator causing a crash is not normal nor a matter of luck, therefore something should be done. That's what I think and I won't argue more, I respect everyone's opinion but well, we can't always agree on everything. ^^
As far as the actual racing goes, gotta hand it to Froome, Porte and Mollema. They clearly were going well today. Quintana I was worried about from the first attack. It didn't seem to have pop to me, which 9/10 times happen because you're already working hard and even getting out 600w is hard compared to getting out 900w. Proved to be the case as eventually Quintana couldn't follow.
It's looking from for him right now. I think the double crosswind stages took too much out of him. When you're a small guy like that with lower absolute wattage on the flats crosswinds are the devil. He had to fight yesterday and today most likely just to stay with the group, and I don't think he will stem the bleeding tomorrow. I'm expecting a 1:30-3:00 loss tomorrow from Quintana. Anything inside a minute would completely shock me.
I think Quintana will be the better climber after the rest day and into the third week, but I suspect that Chris Froome is going to have plenty of margin to hold him off. I'm pleased to see my assessment of Porte proving accurate, as he looks like he is in clear competition with Quintana for that 2nd place spot at the moment.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed and pulling hard, but it looks very, very grim for Quintana right now. Watching Mollema will be interesting too. Is he going to contend, or did he have a magical day today?
On July 15 2016 06:07 Gjhc wrote: Ok my bad misinterpreting that sentence. I guess the difference is that you think that it's ok for public to interfere while I don't and I don't think we'll reach a consensus here.
For me sport is about seeing who's the best physically/mentally/teamwork and when applicable technologically. And yes sometimes there's luck involved, but it's luck within the rules and the normal course of the competition. In this case Froome Porte and Mollema were the strongest and were going to gain around 20secs (if not more) on the line, I think that was obvious. A spectator causing a crash is not normal nor a matter of luck, therefore something should be done. That's what I think and I won't argue more, I respect everyone's opinion but well, we can't always agree on everything. ^^
I'd of course prefer if they didn't interfere, but I think it's more authentic to keep the time at the finish line the time at the finish line, and rather focus on minimizing the chance of it happening.
A lot of things are done to make the race more exciting, like combativity award, intermediate sprints, bonus seconds, 3km rule... Stuff that imo really has nothing to do with cycling, but it's done for entertainment value. So when you say a crash is due to a spectator is not normal... I think a lot in the TdF is not normal, I mean most teams in the tour ride with the intent of getting maximum screen time, that's not really normal either.
So yeah, just to close off, I think that something should be done too, but at the end of the day, not happy with the available choices, which is giving people credit for expected performance. But yeah, different opinions are nice, as they can spur new shifts in your thinking and stuff. No personal vendettas and respectful disagreement is just fine
Do they give Froome and Porte Mollema time, or the 5' 24" group time?
Either way, I don't agree with it, and I like Froome. It's like the guy on Eurosport said, it's a very selective application of rules, particularly because this incident gained a lot of attention.
They now used the time differentials at the moment of the crash. So Froome actually gained time on this stage.
Time for a massive controversy boys. If that's the case and Froome wins the TdF by less than 2 minutes, his win will be questioned for as long as he rides.
No it won't. There is nothing asterisk about that at all, and in my book it's the only remotebly reasonable decision to make. Dipshit organizers couldn't even put barriers up from 1km to go on a summit finish of a hugely iconic and important climb on Bastille day, that had been shortened (further forcing spectators tighter together). That's just downright assinine and incompetent race organization.
This wasn't 30km from the finish. This was within 1k. They put barriers up normally at 3k on big climbs like Alp D'Huez. They only had the last 500m here.
Neither Froome, Porte, or Mollema were in any way responsible for that crash. That crash was caused by race organizers. You can't possibly penalize riders for that. The only part that is even remotely questionable would be taking the time at 1km as opposed to neutralizing time for the entire stage, but taking time at 1km is pretty damn fair. No chance the time for any rider varies by more than 3-5 seconds at the finish played out normally than the gaps from 1k.
Utter incompetence today by the tour organization, but at least didn't pull a USGA and at least made the only reasonable ruling.
The internet seems to have varying opinions, and people having different opinions on these things is what controversy is.
Either way, using the rulebook and past precedents, decision is fine (if I was to nullify the crash, I'd probably do the same as they did), but philosophically to me, I don't think it's a good decision. I have a feeling there will be disagreement in every post of mine you read today D:
Haha probably so. I really struggle to see your point though I'll admit. If I put on a race, it's my responsibility to ensure the ability of the riders to race properly and safely. If I fail to act appropriately to ensure safety, I absolutely should not punish the people riding my race as a result of my incompetence.
Presumably we can agree that taking time from 1km reflects very closely the gaps we would have seen at the finishing line had there been no spectators on the course.
So, I guess the argument is that regardless of interference of any kind, you always just chalk it up to random chance/luck and let it go at that. I just don't know about that one. Let me ask you what you think they would do in baseball if a fan jumped out the stands, into the stadium, and grabbed a ground ball and ran around the field with it a bit, turning it into a doube, triple, or inside the park home run? Or if in a NFL game some fan charged out the field and grabbed the QB's arm as he was getting ready to throw, resulting in a fumble?
I'd be willing to bet, quite a lot, they would neutralize the play. What they definitely wouldn't do is say "oh a fan running out on the field is bad luck, we will let the results of that stand". We see clearly that the "bad luck" approach is not what's used in any other sport in the case of deliberate outside interference or organization incompetence, and to me any other decision doesn't make sense. I don't see a basis for it, whether from an equitable standpoint or a logical one.
On July 15 2016 06:07 Gjhc wrote: Ok my bad misinterpreting that sentence. I guess the difference is that you think that it's ok for public to interfere while I don't and I don't think we'll reach a consensus here.
For me sport is about seeing who's the best physically/mentally/teamwork and when applicable technologically. And yes sometimes there's luck involved, but it's luck within the rules and the normal course of the competition. In this case Froome Porte and Mollema were the strongest and were going to gain around 20secs (if not more) on the line, I think that was obvious. A spectator causing a crash is not normal nor a matter of luck, therefore something should be done. That's what I think and I won't argue more, I respect everyone's opinion but well, we can't always agree on everything. ^^
I'd of course prefer if they didn't interfere, but I think it's more authentic to keep the time at the finish line the time at the finish line, and rather focus on minimizing the chance of it happening.
Which they did the opposite of today...
It's like saying "come ride in my race, and when you do get fucked over by a crash as a result of our negligence we'll make sure it screws you over".
I'm actually really curious how you feel about trains. If you in the Tour in a big group of GC guys, and get some ridiculous, maybe even hypothetical 20 min train that blocks you off because you've just done your pull and gone to the back of 20 riders do you believe the rider should lose 20 mins for that?
Or what about if the race organizer put a barrier on one side of the roundabout, and you choose the wrong side and get blocked and split from the peleton?
My perspective is that if I organize an event, besides making money, I want to do everything I can to provide a fair experience to the players, where they can feel reasonably safe. So you're right, and you gave a better perspective of why TdF failed when discussing stuff like Bastille day and whatnot.
I mentioned that I support neutralization if it significantly impacts the whole race and made the implicit assumption that repeating or save-resuming is difficult. In cycling, you can't repeat a play, most sports that I can think of are focused on the same play over and over, so repetition is more feasible. Besides the impossibility of getting everyone to stop to wait for people to fix their bikes, physically it'd be very tough to simulate as well. To be clear, I'd 100% be in favor of doing some form of restart if something like that happened, kind of how the peloton waits if someone important has a mechanical. So in most sports, the play is done again, and it's replicated relatively similarly, and the winner of that play gets the point, that's fine, that's good.
However in cycling, nothing is repeated, so it's just assumed this would happen, and boom, here is this much time for you. In some sports sometimes you get credit when there's such an overwhelming chance you'd win and something happens, but the issue with cycling is it's not a overwhelming chance of some discrete win/lose quantity, but a continuous quantity instead. And not only that, but I think that same time as Mollema was too big of an assumption. And like others said, Mollema, and others who got slowed down by the crash didn't get any bonus... It's a rule that is applied selectively, and I don't feel confident to say that the result would have been the same if it was only Mollema crashing either.
So yes, I don't think the real results mimic reality accurately enough. I feel much better about the 3km rule because there is far more certainty in sprints. I also don't like it because the impacts of the crash transfer over to the next day (i.e. potentially having more energy for the next day, while in other sports this effect is much smaller)... If there was more certainty in the outcome, and more guarantee that the rule would be applied consistently, I'd be more open to siding with it.
On July 15 2016 06:07 Gjhc wrote: Ok my bad misinterpreting that sentence. I guess the difference is that you think that it's ok for public to interfere while I don't and I don't think we'll reach a consensus here.
For me sport is about seeing who's the best physically/mentally/teamwork and when applicable technologically. And yes sometimes there's luck involved, but it's luck within the rules and the normal course of the competition. In this case Froome Porte and Mollema were the strongest and were going to gain around 20secs (if not more) on the line, I think that was obvious. A spectator causing a crash is not normal nor a matter of luck, therefore something should be done. That's what I think and I won't argue more, I respect everyone's opinion but well, we can't always agree on everything. ^^
I'd of course prefer if they didn't interfere, but I think it's more authentic to keep the time at the finish line the time at the finish line, and rather focus on minimizing the chance of it happening.
Which they did the opposite of today...
It's like saying "come ride in my race, and when you do get fucked over by a crash as a result of our negligence we'll make sure it screws you over".
I'm actually really curious how you feel about trains. If you in the Tour in a big group of GC guys, and get some ridiculous, maybe even hypothetical 20 min train that blocks you off because you've just done your pull and gone to the back of 20 riders do you believe the rider should lose 20 mins for that?
Or what about if the race organizer put a barrier on one side of the roundabout, and you choose the wrong side and get blocked and split from the peleton?
I would look at the situation from the other perspective. Yes, organizer fucked up, but now we will just make an assumption of how things would go to give these two people a podium for the stage they would have won. I don't think it's fair to the other riders... The ones who crashed didn't earn that time (if they re-do a play in other sports, they earn that point/time/etc).
I actually gave the exact train example in a post 1-2 pages back. Neutralization is good in this case (for cycling), because the outcome of the race would be massively compromised, while Froome and Porte are just 2 out of 198. Of course, all I'm saying is as my opinion and I'm not stating them as facts.
As for the barrier example, I think that's something that the peloton would deal with themselves and wait, but if they didn't, it once again for me depends on how many people it compromises. If 2-3 take the wrong turn, sucks for you that you're racing in a race where the organizer isn't more careful, but it is what it is. If it's like 10-15+ people, then yeah, some kind of neutralization is needed. In esports I see teams get screwed very often by organizers, and it's the same thing, they don't gift you wins because statistically you're going to win (unless it's accidently gg'ing or something where there is irrefutable certainty), however there it can be handled with replaying far more often.
Also just to note, I didn't start this conversation with some concrete views, and I've built them through thinking and posting here as well, so I apologize for being so drawn out with my thoughts. To sum it up in one statement though, and what I'll leave it off as is:
I think that it's unfair to the other 190 riders, so the unfairness to the 2 riders must be balanced with that, and also, I think that it's a decision that will lead to more of these unfair situations in the future.
On July 15 2016 06:48 FiWiFaKi wrote: My perspective is that if I organize an event, besides making money, I want to do everything I can to provide a fair experience to the players, where they can feel reasonably safe. So you're right, and you gave a better perspective of why TdF failed when discussing stuff like Bastille day and whatnot.
I mentioned that I support neutralization if it significantly impacts the whole race and made the implicit assumption that repeating or save-resuming is difficult. In cycling, you can't repeat a play, most sports that I can think of are focused on the same play over and over, so repetition is more feasible. Besides the impossibility of getting everyone to stop to wait for people to fix their bikes, physically it'd be very tough to simulate as well. To be clear, I'd 100% be in favor of doing some form of restart if something like that happened, kind of how the peloton waits if someone important has a mechanical. So in most sports, the play is done again, and it's replicated relatively similarly, and the winner of that play gets the point, that's fine, that's good.
However in cycling, nothing is repeated, so it's just assumed this would happen, and boom, here is this much time for you. In some sports sometimes you get credit when there's such an overwhelming chance you'd win and something happens, but the issue with cycling is it's not a overwhelming chance of some discrete win/lose quantity, but a continuous quantity instead. And not only that, but I think that same time as Mollema was too big of an assumption. And like others said, Mollema, and others who got slowed down by the crash didn't get any bonus... It's a rule that is applied selectively, and I don't feel confident to say that the result would have been the same if it was only Mollema crashing either.
So yes, I don't think the real results mimic reality accurately enough. I feel much better about the 3km rule because there is far more certainty in sprints. I also don't like it because the impacts of the crash transfer over to the next day (i.e. potentially having more energy for the next day, while in other sports this effect is much smaller)... If there was more certainty in the outcome, and more guarantee that the rule would be applied consistently, I'd be more open to siding with it.
On July 15 2016 06:07 Gjhc wrote: Ok my bad misinterpreting that sentence. I guess the difference is that you think that it's ok for public to interfere while I don't and I don't think we'll reach a consensus here.
For me sport is about seeing who's the best physically/mentally/teamwork and when applicable technologically. And yes sometimes there's luck involved, but it's luck within the rules and the normal course of the competition. In this case Froome Porte and Mollema were the strongest and were going to gain around 20secs (if not more) on the line, I think that was obvious. A spectator causing a crash is not normal nor a matter of luck, therefore something should be done. That's what I think and I won't argue more, I respect everyone's opinion but well, we can't always agree on everything. ^^
I'd of course prefer if they didn't interfere, but I think it's more authentic to keep the time at the finish line the time at the finish line, and rather focus on minimizing the chance of it happening.
Which they did the opposite of today...
It's like saying "come ride in my race, and when you do get fucked over by a crash as a result of our negligence we'll make sure it screws you over".
I'm actually really curious how you feel about trains. If you in the Tour in a big group of GC guys, and get some ridiculous, maybe even hypothetical 20 min train that blocks you off because you've just done your pull and gone to the back of 20 riders do you believe the rider should lose 20 mins for that?
Or what about if the race organizer put a barrier on one side of the roundabout, and you choose the wrong side and get blocked and split from the peleton?
I would look at the situation from the other perspective. Yes, organizer fucked up, but now we will just make an assumption of how things would go to give these two people a podium for the stage they would have won. I don't think it's fair to the other riders... The ones who crashed didn't earn that time (if they re-do a play in other sports, they earn that point/time/etc).
I actually gave the exact train example in a post 1-2 pages back. Neutralization is good in this case (for cycling), because the outcome of the race would be massively compromised, while Froome and Porte are just 2 out of 198. Of course, all I'm saying is as my opinion and I'm not stating them as facts.
As for the barrier example, I think that's something that the peloton would deal with themselves and wait, but if they didn't, it once again for me depends on how many people it compromises. If 2-3 take the wrong turn, sucks for you that you're racing in a race where the organizer isn't more careful, but it is what it is. If it's like 10-15+ people, then yeah, some kind of neutralization is needed. In esports I see teams get screwed very often by organizers, and it's the same thing, they don't gift you wins because statistically you're going to win (unless it's accidently gg'ing or something where there is irrefutable certainty), however there it can be handled with replaying far more often.
Without the crash, the result would have been even better for Froome, Porte and Mollema, Valverde was leading the pursuit and he is not as strong as them. But basically, we can sum up your "philosophical" position (I don't think you have any idea about what is philosophy...) is "I am fucking salty about this "favoritism", yeah that sucks for them but it is unfair for blabla despite the fact that the rules have been applied (I didn't even bother to read the rulebook LOL) but there are tacits rules on the peloton in which I have no idea about but it does not matter because I just want to see Froome and Porte fucked" I'm all right? Rules have been applied, deal with it and deal with the fact that there are even more carefully applied for those who can play the general and make a reclamation about it.
More accurate comparaisons could be done but I will not enter in your silly game.
What a fucking disgrace man. Richie Porte can't catch a god damn break from the cycling gods and he gets very little respect and coverage during the race. He was outclimbing everyone and equal with Froome, yet I'm still hearing about Barguil yoyoing, or Tejay Van Garderen doing nothing special in the chase group.
I'm all for cycling coverage, but some of the bias is so damn obvious lol. Still love Liggett and Sherwin though.
What a terrible finish to what was shaping up to be a great finish with GC implications.
Dutch cycling talkshow was very negative, some of then even wanting Froome to get penalised for breaking the rules by running without a bike and in general they feel Mollema was robbed by the time-juggling and don't understand why Quintana gets compensation. Saying cycling shouldn't become a jury sport, as once you start changing times there is no end to it. Also brought up earlier examples that didn't get time compensation.
They also saw Sky leader Brailford running into the jury office immediately, so he influenced the entire process.
I think that's a harsh way to look at it, and it would feel very silly for Froome losing time like this, but I do agree this creates a difficult precedent for future races.
One interesting thing they noted was that the ASO cut the finish short for safety reasons for the riders (due to wind). But with this they actually fail to provide safety as 21km of supporters get condensed into 15km and they don't even provide normal basic fences or extra gendarmes to keep the hordes away. So he thought they only cut it short because the podium with sponsor wasn't wind proof enough and hardly give a shit about rider safety because safety costs extra money.
On July 15 2016 05:44 FiWiFaKi wrote: I don't think you understood my statement:
"The fact of whether there was intent or not of the spectators should not impact the result of the race"
What I am saying here is that it doesn't matter whether the spectator did it intentionally or accidentally, both results should lead to the same thing. So what I am saying, is the action taken in both instances should be the same (don't neutralize).
Because of this, your next statement isn't in line with what I'm arguing. One of the reasons why I'm saying accident outcome = intentional outcome, is like you said, making it too difficult to tell apart, and we don't want to make TdF feel like a court case. A Quintana fan could push Froome over, much like how someone else could go shoot someone they don't like. However, a hopefully majority group of nice spectators keeping things in check, harsh penalties, security staff, and barriers where people get too rowdy is hopefully sufficient to keep them at a minimum.
You argue it's best to keep it closest to the real thing, which I agree with, but in my eyes, real thing means people getting to the finish line when they do.... Otherwise you start playing figure skating, and trying to subjectively judge the race.
A little bit more, and you will find the agression of Merckx a beautiful and authentic moment of the tour. I still have no clue about what is your damn spirit of the sport (not focused around the best performance and self surpassing and probably the same as your philosophy). Anyway, this situation is not even comparable to Hoogerland and Flecha's, there were not aiming the general classement (they did not even try a reclamation because they did not care), just to win the stage exactly like Greg at the San Sebastian classic where he got pushed by a car but I don't consider this as authentic, he didn't, Poulidor didn't either when he got percuted by a moto and the organizer too, you're pretty much the only one who thinks apply the word "authentic" to this, what you're saying is completely ridiculous, the problem with this past cases is that there are no way of coming back but in 3 weeks race for the ppl who want to win the general, they are. Yes, what happened to Porte in the previous stages is unfair but it is "fate", what happened here is not fate, it is caused by 1) a bad organization and 2) a straight incapacity to continue the race by having too much spectators, happily, there are rules about it (yeah these rules hurt you a lot :D ). Btw, Froome and Porte situation was not "authentic" in the definition of "whose who are not you, basically, everyone except you", indeed they were very specials, it is not common to see a stage shortened nor seeing spectator provoking a fall and you're seriously deluded by thinking that a spectator pushing a cyclist still makes this race authentic (I would be curious to heard Merckx 's advice about the handsome authenticity of the stage and "spirit of the sport" where he received a punch and lost against Thévenet) don't know how far you will push the grotesque but I am not even curious, I have nothing more to say to you, what you said disgusts me far too much.
On July 15 2016 08:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Dutch cycling talkshow was very negative, some of then even wanting Froome to get penalised for breaking the rules by running without a bike and in general they feel Mollema was robbed by the time-juggling and don't understand why Quintana gets compensation. Saying cycling shouldn't become a jury sport, as once you start changing times there is no end to it. Also brought up earlier examples that didn't get time compensation.
They also saw Sky leader Brailford running into the jury office immediately, so he influenced the entire process.
I think that's a harsh way to look at it, and it would feel very silly for Froome losing time like this, but I do agree this creates a difficult precedent for future races.
One interesting thing they noted was that the ASO cut the finish short for safety reasons for the riders (due to wind). But with this they actually fail to provide safety as 21km of supporters get condensed into 15km and they don't even provide normal basic fences or extra gendarmes to keep the hordes away. So he thought they only cut it short because the podium with sponsor wasn't wind proof enough and hardly give a shit about rider safety because safety costs extra money.
Well certainly the rider who's most upset about the situation is Dutch, so definitely could be bias.
My impression from watching Eurosport and NBC was that the commentators had a similar perspective to me, as well as the analysts at the tour. Just talking about whether Froome will get DQ for running, you're not allowed to leave your bike, etc etc. Here it's kind of the opposite, the guys who have been following the sport for quite a while here tend to be against it. It's a bit too much of an idealist view for me, but I think it goes to show that it becomes rather easy to argue both positions, given that the stances on this are quite split between the popular TdF figures.
It's just interesting to me, because Nibali was DQ'ed for holding onto the team car, Nizzolo for swerving to the side during a sprint... So even on that end, I'd be interesting to hear the rationale for the 200-300?~ running that Froome did being okay, even though I don't mind it that much.
@stilt Not interested in having an emotionally charged debate, sorry.
On July 15 2016 07:51 darthfoley wrote: What a fucking disgrace man. Richie Porte can't catch a god damn break from the cycling gods and he gets very little respect and coverage during the race. He was outclimbing everyone and equal with Froome, yet I'm still hearing about Barguil yoyoing, or Tejay Van Garderen doing nothing special in the chase group.
I'm all for cycling coverage, but some of the bias is so damn obvious lol. Still love Liggett and Sherwin though.
What a terrible finish to what was shaping up to be a great finish with GC implications.
Richie Porte is soooo fucking unlucky these past few years it's insane. And it's not unlucky as in crashing a lot (which can have an element of rider error) but it's just complete random stuff like mechanicals at the most comically bad times, or shit like today when he was attacking and gets a faceful of motorcycle.
Still, I feel pretty confident Porte is going to finish second or third. I don't think he will, but if he gains time on Froome from here, I will really feel bad for the guy. I think people tend to say "Porte isn't proven/always has bad days in GTs", but I don't think that's the best assessment.
That was true for Richie pre 2015. But Porte starting in late 2014 and on really stepped up his game. He went from being a really solid rider to one of the best stage racers out there. His failures in GTs before 2015 can be chalked up to "not good enough". Analyzing from 2015 on we only have one data point, the Giro, where he was immediately out of it on that fateful day 2 or 3 where he had the 10km mechanical + wheel change penalty. Don't think that should be held against the rider when assessing potential. Aside from that he was dominant stage racer in 2015, and good in 2016.
I knew Kruijswijk was damn good from the 2015 Giro, and he showed it this year even if he did fuck it up in the end, and I've been on the Porte bandwagon since 2015. Just keep an eye on Porte, I guarantee he will start showing his class in GTs over the next year or two.
You guys are looking at this the wrong way. They should have put barriers, they did not, it was a mistake, can't be undone. Altering the results, giving time bonuses etc. however are totally in their control and they mishandled that miserably. All I'm going to remind is;
1) There was no 3km rule, crash was due to uncontrollable circumstances. Pretty much same basis with Yates crash, how much time did he get for getting crushed? 2)
On July 15 2016 05:29 Gjhc wrote: Spectators are not part of the race, they just happen to be really close to it due to obvious reasons. And you just now said '...the spectators should not impact the result of the race...'. They shouldn't and now they did, can it be ignored?
Is a spectator intentionally running in front of someone to not let them pass that much different than running next to them and getting your handlebars caught on their flag?
That was not my point. Let's say a Quintana fan makes it look like an accident and causes Froome to crash. We are talking about a very difficult situation, you never know why the spectator did it, and then a rider can lose everything he worked for because someone external to the race wanted to influence it's result. That's why I think that anything spectator related, especially at such a critical stage of the race should have zero tolerance and despite we never knowing the exact result that would happen at the finish line, it's better to make it the closest to the real thing than making a few riders lose time because of the public. And again I only agree with the decision because of all the factors, not just because it was spectator/moto related.
The puncture thing is totally different. Porte and BMC are the only ones responsible for the type of tires they use, of course everyone wants to use the ones with lower rolling resistance, and sometimes crap happens. The equipment each rider uses is indeed part of the race. If Coquard had a slightly better bike/equipment (be it tyres, frame, wheels, helmet, skinsuit) he would have won the other stage, yet he didn't have and lost.
Oh yeah? Well why did only Froome get time bonus and Mollema not? Cuz Mollema made up for it with his own effort and Froome got his bike smashed? Well amount of carbon layers they use in the frame is totally in their responsibility. 3) Past incidents of similar fashion saw no such treatment. People simply said shit happens.
Moral of the story: Only and only reason they got time compensation is that yellow jersey was caught running up a mountain stage and millions watched it live. Biggest unfairness right here is on Mollema who looked best to me yesterday. Fuck you Asso, fuck you race comitee.
On July 15 2016 14:33 Skynx wrote: You guys are looking at this the wrong way. They should have put barriers, they did not, it was a mistake, can't be undone. Altering the results, giving time bonuses etc. however are totally in their control and they mishandled that miserably. All I'm going to remind is;
1) There was no 3km rule, crash was due to uncontrollable circumstances. Pretty much same basis with Yates crash, how much time did he get for getting crushed? 2)
On July 15 2016 05:29 Gjhc wrote: Spectators are not part of the race, they just happen to be really close to it due to obvious reasons. And you just now said '...the spectators should not impact the result of the race...'. They shouldn't and now they did, can it be ignored?
Is a spectator intentionally running in front of someone to not let them pass that much different than running next to them and getting your handlebars caught on their flag?
That was not my point. Let's say a Quintana fan makes it look like an accident and causes Froome to crash. We are talking about a very difficult situation, you never know why the spectator did it, and then a rider can lose everything he worked for because someone external to the race wanted to influence it's result. That's why I think that anything spectator related, especially at such a critical stage of the race should have zero tolerance and despite we never knowing the exact result that would happen at the finish line, it's better to make it the closest to the real thing than making a few riders lose time because of the public. And again I only agree with the decision because of all the factors, not just because it was spectator/moto related.
The puncture thing is totally different. Porte and BMC are the only ones responsible for the type of tires they use, of course everyone wants to use the ones with lower rolling resistance, and sometimes crap happens. The equipment each rider uses is indeed part of the race. If Coquard had a slightly better bike/equipment (be it tyres, frame, wheels, helmet, skinsuit) he would have won the other stage, yet he didn't have and lost.
Oh yeah? Well why did only Froome get time bonus and Mollema not? Cuz Mollema made up for it with his own effort and Froome got his bike smashed? Well amount of carbon layers they use in the frame is totally in their responsibility. 3) Past incidents of similar fashion saw no such treatment. People simply said shit happens.
Moral of the story: Only and only reason they got time compensation is that yellow jersey was caught running up a mountain stage and millions watched it live. Biggest unfairness right here is on Mollema who looked best to me yesterday. Fuck you Asso, fuck you race comitee.
1) He got 7secs, which is the advantage he had at the moment of his crash, as I’ve already said a couple posts before. 2) It wasn’t only Froome, Porte, Valverde, Quintana and Tejay also got the time of the group they were with before having to stop because of the crash. And it’s pretty obvious why they got it. ‘Well amount of carbon layers they use in the frame is totally in their responsibility.’ Are you playing dumb on purpose? Tires are supposed to handle normal road situations, bikes aren’t supposed to get smashed by vehicles. Froome’s bike got hit by a moto from behind and that’s why the seatstay broke. Is it Stig/Demoitié fault they weren’t using full body protection? I don’t think I’ll add anything else here. 3) Give me 1 example cause I can’t find any. And because a situation was unfair to someone in the past doesn’t mean a similar situation it will have to be unfair again.
Dumoulin smashed everyone's time, but Froome smashed everyone in the GC. Special mention to our Portuguese TT champion with an amazing 3rd place, better than all the best TTers in the world except for the Dumoulin and Froome
On July 15 2016 14:33 Skynx wrote: You guys are looking at this the wrong way. They should have put barriers, they did not, it was a mistake, can't be undone. Altering the results, giving time bonuses etc. however are totally in their control and they mishandled that miserably. All I'm going to remind is;
1) There was no 3km rule, crash was due to uncontrollable circumstances. Pretty much same basis with Yates crash, how much time did he get for getting crushed? 2)
On July 15 2016 05:29 Gjhc wrote: Spectators are not part of the race, they just happen to be really close to it due to obvious reasons. And you just now said '...the spectators should not impact the result of the race...'. They shouldn't and now they did, can it be ignored?
Is a spectator intentionally running in front of someone to not let them pass that much different than running next to them and getting your handlebars caught on their flag?
That was not my point. Let's say a Quintana fan makes it look like an accident and causes Froome to crash. We are talking about a very difficult situation, you never know why the spectator did it, and then a rider can lose everything he worked for because someone external to the race wanted to influence it's result. That's why I think that anything spectator related, especially at such a critical stage of the race should have zero tolerance and despite we never knowing the exact result that would happen at the finish line, it's better to make it the closest to the real thing than making a few riders lose time because of the public. And again I only agree with the decision because of all the factors, not just because it was spectator/moto related.
The puncture thing is totally different. Porte and BMC are the only ones responsible for the type of tires they use, of course everyone wants to use the ones with lower rolling resistance, and sometimes crap happens. The equipment each rider uses is indeed part of the race. If Coquard had a slightly better bike/equipment (be it tyres, frame, wheels, helmet, skinsuit) he would have won the other stage, yet he didn't have and lost.
Oh yeah? Well why did only Froome get time bonus and Mollema not? Cuz Mollema made up for it with his own effort and Froome got his bike smashed? Well amount of carbon layers they use in the frame is totally in their responsibility. 3) Past incidents of similar fashion saw no such treatment. People simply said shit happens.
Moral of the story: Only and only reason they got time compensation is that yellow jersey was caught running up a mountain stage and millions watched it live. Biggest unfairness right here is on Mollema who looked best to me yesterday. Fuck you Asso, fuck you race comitee.
1) He got 7secs, which is the advantage he had at the moment of his crash, as I’ve already said a couple posts before. 2) It wasn’t only Froome, Porte, Valverde, Quintana and Tejay also got the time of the group they were with before having to stop because of the crash. And it’s pretty obvious why they got it. ‘Well amount of carbon layers they use in the frame is totally in their responsibility.’ Are you playing dumb on purpose? Tires are supposed to handle normal road situations, bikes aren’t supposed to get smashed by vehicles. Froome’s bike got hit by a moto from behind and that’s why the seatstay broke. Is it Stig/Demoitié fault they weren’t using full body protection? I don’t think I’ll add anything else here. 3) Give me 1 example cause I can’t find any. And because a situation was unfair to someone in the past doesn’t mean a similar situation it will have to be unfair again.
Dumoulin smashed everyone's time, but Froome smashed everyone in the GC. Special mention to our Portuguese TT champion with an amazing 3rd place, better than all the best TTers in the world except for the Dumoulin and Froome
If you honestly think the judgement is fair I'm not gona bother arguing. I thought those people who get moonshard 1st on morph and eat it don't actually exist but apparently they do.
What a performance from Froome and Dumoulin, absolute destruction. Well I was clearly wrong about Dumoulin being a useless pick, his form really improved throughout the tour.
And we'll, I'm never a fan of a TT winning the Tour, but the strongest rider did win, barring some big accident. Chris Froome in absolute fantastic form, how riders gunning for the GC can lose 3'30" in 37km is just crazy to me. I'm curious how this is going to work in the mountains now, if Sky is just going to ride at the front and nobody will ever attack (unless someone has a bit extra with 2km to go and wants to gain 29 seconds). I just hope the mountains remain exciting.
On July 16 2016 03:36 FiWiFaKi wrote: What a performance from Froome and Dumoulin, absolute destruction. Well I was clearly wrong about Dumoulin being a useless pick, his form really improved throughout the tour.
And we'll, I'm never a fan of a TT winning the Tour, but the strongest rider did win, barring some big accident. Chris Froome in absolute fantastic form, how riders gunning for the GC can lose 3'30" in 37km is just crazy to me. I'm curious how this is going to work in the mountains now, if Sky is just going to ride at the front and nobody will ever attack (unless someone has a bit extra with 2km to go and wants to gain 29 seconds). I just hope the mountains remain exciting.
350w vs 420w. Pretty much all there is too it in the case of Quintana. For someone like Aru...it's just a really bad day. If you're really off your game you can easily be down 10% output, that's certainly worth 1-2 minutes, so for a guy like Aru expecting to lose to Froome already by 1-2 minutes...there is your 3-4 min gap.
Froome should have this well in hand now, barring a massive crack/bonk/crash. Great ride by Mollema today, but I'm going on the record now and saying he won't finish in the top 3.
I'm betting:
1) Froome 2) Quintana 3) Valverde
Third is the tough call for me. I'm expecting off days from Yates and Mollema at some point. Porte is an outside chance, but has some serious time he needs to make up. I guess I feel Valverde has a better chance than either TJVG or Bardet.
Quintana is still class of the mountains, and that will show. He wasn't good on Ventoux, but I will bet you that's a result of crosswind hell. As a little guy he had to expend too much energy getting to Ventoux relative to guys like Froome, and didn't have any gas. Just look at his attacks and style on the bike on Ventoux vs the Andorra summit finish. Ventoux he looked flat and heavy, without the rhythm and speed you usually see, and it showed in his attacks...he basically didn't go anywhere and couldn't even stay out of the saddle for long.
Expect better Quintana over the last week. Sadly, I think TdF yellow is over for him without a Froome disaster day.
On July 15 2016 14:33 Skynx wrote: You guys are looking at this the wrong way. They should have put barriers, they did not, it was a mistake, can't be undone.
Correct.
On July 15 2016 14:33 Skynx wrote: 1) There was no 3km rule, crash was due to uncontrollable circumstances. Pretty much same basis with Yates crash, how much time did he get for getting crushed?
None. Because he had a small gap made on the descent before the short kick to the finish with GC guys hot on his heels. Large amount of uncertainty as to whether he would have finished ahead of the main GC pack.
Oh yeah? Well why did only Froome get time bonus and Mollema not?
Mollema gained 23 seconds on everyone not named Porte or Froome. Incidentally he was 23 seconds ahead of every GC guy not named Froome/Porte. He was exactly 0 seconds ahead of Froome/Porte at the time of the accident and thus didn't deserve to gain time.
Cuz Mollema made up for it with his own effort and Froome got his bike smashed? Well amount of carbon layers they use in the frame is totally in their responsibility.
Mollema made up for it? Huh? He simply got up on his bike first and was the only one lucky enough not to be blocked by motorcycles. That accident if anything helped Mollema because he was already on his limit struggling to hold the wheels of an attacking Porte and Froome following. Mollema was, if anything, more like to lose time to Porte/Froome rather than gain time had the stage played out without incident given how he looked.
But really that's not important. Crazy stuff happened that basically ended the stage at 1km to go. If you want to argue that Porte/Froome/Mollema should have been given same time as the rest of the GC guys, I wouldn't be that opposed, but personally feel that what they did was a more accurate representation. Froome/Mollema/Porte were away and gaining time on the other GC guys, had the stage played out normally it's a 99.9% certainitly that the gaps back to the other GC guys would have been even bigger than what was awarded.
3) Past incidents of similar fashion saw no such treatment. People simply said shit happens.
Mollema who looked best to me yesterday. Fuck you Asso, fuck you race comitee
Mollema who just sat on at the back clinging to wheels and not contributing at the front or attacking looked the best?
On July 15 2016 14:33 Skynx wrote: 1) There was no 3km rule, crash was due to uncontrollable circumstances. Pretty much same basis with Yates crash, how much time did he get for getting crushed?
None. Because he had a small gap made on the descent before the short kick to the finish with GC guys hot on his heels. Large amount of uncertainty as to whether he would have finished ahead of the main GC pack.
Why are people insisting that Yates didn't get any time? How do you think he got the white jersey that stage? http://www.procyclingstats.com/race.php?id=163719 Check the time he 'finished' behind. He placed 73rd yet he is 3:30 behind the winner while the main group is 3:37. This makes people saying that Froome got benefited because he's Froome even more foolish.
On July 15 2016 14:33 Skynx wrote: 1) There was no 3km rule, crash was due to uncontrollable circumstances. Pretty much same basis with Yates crash, how much time did he get for getting crushed?
None. Because he had a small gap made on the descent before the short kick to the finish with GC guys hot on his heels. Large amount of uncertainty as to whether he would have finished ahead of the main GC pack.
Why are people insisting that Yates didn't get any time? How do you think he got the white jersey that stage? http://www.procyclingstats.com/race.php?id=163719 Check the time he 'finished' behind. He placed 73rd yet he is 3:30 behind the winner while the main group is 3:37. This makes people saying that Froome got benefited because he's Froome even more foolish.
I actually missed that. Which means that the race organization has been handling these "mishaps" in a consistent manner.
On July 15 2016 14:33 Skynx wrote: 1) There was no 3km rule, crash was due to uncontrollable circumstances. Pretty much same basis with Yates crash, how much time did he get for getting crushed?
None. Because he had a small gap made on the descent before the short kick to the finish with GC guys hot on his heels. Large amount of uncertainty as to whether he would have finished ahead of the main GC pack.
Why are people insisting that Yates didn't get any time? How do you think he got the white jersey that stage? http://www.procyclingstats.com/race.php?id=163719 Check the time he 'finished' behind. He placed 73rd yet he is 3:30 behind the winner while the main group is 3:37. This makes people saying that Froome got benefited because he's Froome even more foolish.
I actually missed that. Which means that the race organization has been handling these "mishaps" in a consistent manner.
Yes they have, and I don't see anyone complaining about Yates getting that time bonus, quite the opposite actually, some imply that it would be fair that he should get it (which again he did), although it's way more likely that he would get caught in that last ramp than Froome/Porte getting caught or losing time to Mollema.
On July 16 2016 21:43 Gjhc wrote: Hey L_Master, weren't you going to make the climbing challenge this weekend?
It's in the OP, but yea either this weekend or through the rest day are the target days to go for it!
I wish i could have participated to the challenge but i wont have access to a bike until the 26 of july(not that i would have any chance against one of you!) good idea nevertheless!
I'm surprised Cavendish is going this far into the Tour with the olympics coming up soon. I don't know if his victory today was the reason/plan but I'd definitely be surprised if he finished now.
edit: Valverde doesn't get enough credit for being so stable/consistent year in, year out.
For anyone interested that rides bikes and feels inspired watching the best do their thing, I'd challenge everyone to get out and do an epic ride in the hills (or on the flats if you have no hills) and post them up. I'll say the challenge opens on the 15th and closes on the 21st.
There will be three categories for:
1) Longest Duration 2) Most Elevation Gain 3) Highest VAM on a climb greater than 300m in elevation change (A 4-6 min climb will be accepted in lieu of a 300m+ climb, but with a 10% reduction to account for the shorter duration)
So even if you don't have hours of time you can take a stab at number 3. Go out, grab your phone or GPS, and post em up to strava. Small prizes TBA will be associated with each category.
I'll still be doing my ride, tomorrow is the plan, but maybe maybe on Monday instead. I'm unsure how far I'll go as of yet. I haven't done a 3+ hours ride in so long, not to mention a 12 hour one. Not exactly sure how to approach it, but I have my route planned, so should be fun. Also I wonder how my phone battery will last, I never keep GPS on for that long.
On July 17 2016 07:01 MassHysteria wrote: I'm surprised Cavendish is going this far into the Tour with the olympics coming up soon. I don't know if his victory today was the reason/plan but I'd definitely be surprised if he finished now.
edit: Valverde doesn't get enough credit for being so stable/consistent year in, year out.
Yep, he crazy good, and every year it looks like he's going to start to drop, but every year consistent and impressive results. I think he's probably the best GC rider that can also win classics. Along with Sagan, in recent history, he's been probably the most complete package.
On July 17 2016 23:42 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Damn Alaphillipe crashed. He also crashed in the Time Trial:
Or maybe just a mechanical, looking at the footage of him standing next to the road
Meh nothing happens in the GC group. Sky train neutralised it all boring
Wow, that looks scary as shit, unbelievable that he didn't get seriously injured.
Wout Poels alone pulled for most of the climb, caught Valverde+Aru and Bardet and made it almost impossible for anyone else to try to attack. And did you see that fake attack by Froome? So funny, bet everyone crapped themselves.
Got in 2 rides this weekend: Saturday: https://www.strava.com/activities/642560340 A small ride with the only 300+ climb on my area. Unfortunately it has a slight downhill part which kinda screws the VAM. Did decent and while I got my PR, I felt awful from the start, which has been happening for the whole week.
Sunday: https://www.strava.com/activities/643686128 This time almost a 100k ride but very chill (unlike the weather, up to 38ºC), got 1570m elevation. Couldn't do more else I would start the week already tired and screw the rest of the training.
I'm sure people can easily do better in all 3 categories but hey, this is what I got ^^
On July 18 2016 03:20 Gjhc wrote: Got in 2 rides this weekend: Saturday: https://www.strava.com/activities/642560340 A small ride with the only 300+ climb on my area. Unfortunately it has a slight downhill part which kinda screws the VAM. Did decent and while I got my PR, I felt awful from the start, which has been happening for the whole week.
Sunday: https://www.strava.com/activities/643686128 This time almost a 100k ride but very chill (unlike the weather, up to 38ºC), got 1570m elevation. Couldn't do more else I would start the week already tired and screw the rest of the training.
I'm sure people can easily do better in all 3 categories but hey, this is what I got ^^
Bad legs or not that's a solid climb for 15'! I'll probably be getting out on Tue/Wed for my rides, but not looking forward to the weather with foretasted temps of 35+C.
Ugh, we've had thunderstorm warnings for the last 4 days (we've already had 104mm of rain as of July 15th, versus 65mm last July, and July is the 2nd wettest month here. I've been wanting to go today, but it's been a mixture of that and getting addicted to this silly computer game and being lazy. Quite unhappy with myself, I relatively frequently go into these unproductive phases for a couple days to a week.
Anyway, you should extend the contest until the end of the TdF L_Master! I'm definitely set on going out this TdF. Tomorrow should be good, last chance for sprinters who are not Cavendish, and with 6.5% climb for 600m, 1km from the finish line, should be a good stage for someone like Sagan.
On July 18 2016 03:20 Gjhc wrote: Got in 2 rides this weekend: Saturday: https://www.strava.com/activities/642560340 A small ride with the only 300+ climb on my area. Unfortunately it has a slight downhill part which kinda screws the VAM. Did decent and while I got my PR, I felt awful from the start, which has been happening for the whole week.
Sunday: https://www.strava.com/activities/643686128 This time almost a 100k ride but very chill (unlike the weather, up to 38ºC), got 1570m elevation. Couldn't do more else I would start the week already tired and screw the rest of the training.
I'm sure people can easily do better in all 3 categories but hey, this is what I got ^^
Bad legs or not that's a solid climb for 15'! I'll probably be getting out on Tue/Wed for my rides, but not looking forward to the weather with foretasted temps of 35+C.
Nice ride! I will probably post something too gbut it will be on the 26th at the earliest
Just checked today's stage avg speed - 47.1kph. Tony Martin was at the front of the race for about 180km, riding close to 47kph avg, doing easily over 90% of the pulling on a not exactly flat terrain (over 1700m of elevation on the stage) with no tailwind. Is there anyone else in the peloton who can do something like this?
On July 18 2016 15:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Nice job Gjhc!
Ugh, we've had thunderstorm warnings for the last 4 days (we've already had 104mm of rain as of July 15th, versus 65mm last July, and July is the 2nd wettest month here. I've been wanting to go today, but it's been a mixture of that and getting addicted to this silly computer game and being lazy. Quite unhappy with myself, I relatively frequently go into these unproductive phases for a couple days to a week.
Anyway, you should extend the contest until the end of the TdF L_Master! I'm definitely set on going out this TdF. Tomorrow should be good, last chance for sprinters who are not Cavendish, and with 6.5% climb for 600m, 1km from the finish line, should be a good stage for someone like Sagan.
I know that feeling. Not so much with cycling but other things yea.
And yea, I'll say people can go till the end if they want.
On July 18 2016 15:33 FiWiFaKi wrote: Nice job Gjhc!
Ugh, we've had thunderstorm warnings for the last 4 days (we've already had 104mm of rain as of July 15th, versus 65mm last July, and July is the 2nd wettest month here. I've been wanting to go today, but it's been a mixture of that and getting addicted to this silly computer game and being lazy. Quite unhappy with myself, I relatively frequently go into these unproductive phases for a couple days to a week.
Anyway, you should extend the contest until the end of the TdF L_Master! I'm definitely set on going out this TdF. Tomorrow should be good, last chance for sprinters who are not Cavendish, and with 6.5% climb for 600m, 1km from the finish line, should be a good stage for someone like Sagan.
I know that feeling. Not so much with cycling but other things yea.
And yea, I'll say people can go till the end if they want.
Yeah, cycling is usually one of the last things to go, keeping in touch with people, gym workouts, and my job search is usually what's dropped first. I just had two pretty good job interviews for jobs I wanted, and just got rejected this morning for the second one, so that's a bit unfortunate, though I was a bit nervous for both and I knew I didn't do a great job.
Anyway, I biked to University today (I'm more productive here with my job hunt), just 22km (though I still have to go back today), and holy shit, most brutal bike ride I've had in a while (took me maybe 1h05-1h10). I really forgot how brutal a strong headwind is to bike into. Today it was very windy at 40km/hr~, and it's been a while since I've been going up a 1-2% gradient on small front ring, and 3rd largest back ring and at full gas. I was almost at a standstill at the 7% 0.5km portion near the end of the route. Hopefully the wind stays the same, and makes going back a breeze.
Well you saw what happened if you attack today, in the case of Valverde and Dan Martin... If you can't make it stick, you just lose time, and with that, your ambition of a podium if you're anyone in the top 10. Dan Martin losing 45 seconds today and Valverde 2 minutes, all hope is gone for Valverde even though he might even be stronger than Quintana all things considered because of today.
And when you're someone like Yates or Mollema, you just have nobody to help you attack at all, so not much you can do. Froome is just too strong and nothing can be done unfortunately.
What happened with TJVG today? Either way, looks like he's going to repeat his 2015 performance... It'll be interesting to follow Porte at least, and see whether he can make that podium.
edit: Also nice win for Zakarin, good to see he has decent form. I was going to pick him for GC, so I'm glad that there was some merit to that thinking. Majka with a massive lead on the Polka Dot jersey, wow... It's such an odd Jersey, I don't even know what it says about a rider that has it, definitely not that they are the best climber though.
Yea, if Froome continues at this strength their isn't much to be done. So far looks like he is going to get through without paying for the marginal seconds he got, and with that lead will be unshakable. Froome just needs to not crack bad or crash and he should have this race under control.
I think teammate help is seriously overrated on climbs like these. When you're going 15-20kph the benefits from drafting are really minimal. Maybe 5w.
Wondering what is going to come out as far as what is plaguing Quintana. Given his form he is quite clearly dealing with some issue. Bummer. He lost far too much time including and leading up to the TT, but he is the only guy in the peloton that climbs better than Froome and would have a hope of winning.
MTA: Yea, I don't really understand polka jersey competition. Not sure what it is designed to measure. Best climber that's not a GC guy? Best breakaway climber? I kinda ignore it. Same sorta with the green, although that more as a result of how ridiculous Sagan is; but you really could rename it the Sagan jersey.
And wind tunnel tests suggest that the air resistance figure is reduced by 35-50% when riding behind another rider. So riding at 300W on the standard 8% climb suggests they'd be getting a 12W boost. However they're lighter (I think I used a figure of 77-80kg, don't recall exactly), and they also generate more power, thus they ride faster... I used a fairly typical Cd and A values, an air density at 1200m~ elevation, power transmission efficiency of 0.97, and a rolling resistance coefficient of 0.005. And since they ride faster, the air resistance component is even larger, and their savings would be around 20W, which I think is a fairly significant number.
I personally think the Green Jersey is good, depending on the point breakdown on flat/mid/mountain stages, it can either say who's the best sprinter, or the best all-rounder. Currently it is focused on the best sprinters, and I think it demonstrates that very well... I'd be very hard pressed to argue that Sagan isn't at least the top 2 sprinter in the peloton (after biking for 200km), with Cavendish being the one who likely beats him out. But before Cav dropped out, they were very close, Sagan just makes up for it for being a really good all-rounder.
I associate the yellow jersey with being the best climber, and since we value that the most, it's the person who wins the entire TdF. I suppose there's also a bit of TT that goes into it, but overall, being able to stay in the peloton on flat stages doesn't scream oh wow, this guy is so well rounded... Getting good finishes with sprints, tough descents, hills... In my eyes it's like the best classics rider should be the one who wins the Green Jersey, though right now it emphasis the sprinters a bit more. Personally I think the intermediate sprints should only be worth 10-15 points, but anyway.
But yeah, currently the KoM jersey is for a decent rider who is willing to consistently go into the breakaway, kind of like some extension to the most combative award. Either way, it's something I ignore as well.
Today with a rather uneventful stage - Chris Froome and Dumoulin one-two, and all the other GC riders in fairly close contention.
The three winners today for the GC battle were Aru, Porte, and Bardet... And the losers were Quintana, Yates, and Mollema. Outside the top 8, I don't expect the standings to change much, the riders have shown what they're capable of here. It'll be nice battle to watch to see who can get those podium places, anyone in the top 7 is has good odds imo.
Aside from that, Froome has nicely consolidated everything. Which makes sense because with Quintana dealing with whatever he is, it's basically like Nibali 2014 TdF. No competition. Hoping Porte goes inside the top 3. Wouldn't mind seeing Yates stay there, it's been a nice ride by him.
Expecting Mollema to drop to 3rd, or ideally outside the top 3.
On July 21 2016 05:22 FiWiFaKi wrote: I think when I did some calculations with my bodyweight and climbs @ 300W, the percentage of your power that goes into fighting air resistance is:
And wind tunnel tests suggest that the air resistance figure is reduced by 35-50% when riding behind another rider. So riding at 300W on the standard 8% climb suggests they'd be getting a 12W boost. However they're lighter (I think I used a figure of 77-80kg, don't recall exactly), and they also generate more power, thus they ride faster... I used a fairly typical Cd and A values, an air density at 1200m~ elevation, power transmission efficiency of 0.97, and a rolling resistance coefficient of 0.005. And since they ride faster, the air resistance component is even larger, and their savings would be around 20W, which I think is a fairly significant number.
I like the analysis. Just curious though how did you get to 12w boost? If you're going 300w, and spending 4% of it overcoming drag that means you're spending 12w overcoming air resistance. A 30% savings from that would be roughly a 4w advantage.
Now, at 400w and the 67kg of Froome that might even double that, which would bring you into 8-10w advantage. Of which there is a subtle penalty for the fact that you have to be a little more variable with your effort following the wheel. I'd really think at best you're talking 5-10w on a climb like that...and on a good day it's definitely possible to be more than 10w better than someone, probably 20w for normal good/bad legs, and 30w-40w if it's a great day for one versus a terrible day for the other.
Oh geez, not sure what I messed up. Yeah, you're right, I meant to do 300*0.04*0.5 (some paper said it was about that when couple cm's behind the front wheel, the 35%~ was for 1-1.5m meters behind wheel in front of you)... So yeah, I must've just accidentally made a silly omission, and I'd roughly half that number, and 10W looks more reasonable for a better case scenario, so yeah, I don't think your 5W estimate was far off at all.
Off the top of my head, I don't know how much savings the better case of 10W would be, though I watched a GCN video a couple days ago, where one guy went 275W up a climb, and one went 225W, and I vaguely remember that the 275W did it in 21 minutes, while the 225W did it in almost 26 minutes. So for the sake of simplicity, and probably not too outlandish of an assumption, lets assume power is proportional to speed (lets assume everyone weighs the same, and most of your power goes to fighting gravity) if you're riding alone (i.e the people who get dropped)... That would be a 2.5% increase in your speed, or a 2.44% decrease in your time.
So if we use a classic climb like the Alpe d'Huez (it's 8% ish), and use a monster quick time of 40 minutes, that'd result in around a time saving of 1 minute. That's probably the best case scenario though, like you said, doesn't include pacing to the person in front of you and such, and compares it to biking at the front the whole time, etc.
However one factor that we didn't consider is that a big headwind could raise that air resistance number on a climb tremendously (I'd think even 10-20km/hr could double, maybe even quadruple that number), though I don't have any numbers. And once you start getting dropped in those conditions, you could lose massive time. All in all, it's probably a bit overrated, but you know Team Sky, they'll take every marginal gain they can.
Bit disappointed with the last few mountain stages, Sky is really locking everything up tight. The most annoying part isn't that Froome wins, because well he's clearly the strongest in every aspect of the race. But 2nd to 8th place can also hardly attack each other due to the Sky pace, Wout Poels just kills any attacks lol. Also the French tv director must be drunk, he keeps changing shots when excitement happens :/
Really hope that today Sky will chill in the back with their 4 minute lead and let the others fight for the podium places, as that is a super close fight! Mollema will have a very tough time defending his silver (unless he finds his Ventoux legs) as Porte and Yates both look very strong. Quintana very much less so, but is still a threat if he finally has a good day. Bardet might also grab his chance after that super strong TT
I also hope the GC will try to take today's stage for themselves but they've been letting breakaways win every time so it will probably be no different. Also France still needs to win a stage so I expect Coppel, Galopin, Alaphillipe, Chavanel, Rolland, Barguil etc to go crazy today.
On July 21 2016 05:32 FiWiFaKi wrote: I personally think the Green Jersey is good, depending on the point breakdown on flat/mid/mountain stages, it can either say who's the best sprinter, or the best all-rounder. Currently it is focused on the best sprinters, and I think it demonstrates that very well... I'd be very hard pressed to argue that Sagan isn't at least the top 2 sprinter in the peloton (after biking for 200km), with Cavendish being the one who likely beats him out. But before Cav dropped out, they were very close, Sagan just makes up for it for being a really good all-rounder.
I associate the yellow jersey with being the best climber, and since we value that the most, it's the person who wins the entire TdF. I suppose there's also a bit of TT that goes into it, but overall, being able to stay in the peloton on flat stages doesn't scream oh wow, this guy is so well rounded... Getting good finishes with sprints, tough descents, hills... In my eyes it's like the best classics rider should be the one who wins the Green Jersey, though right now it emphasis the sprinters a bit more. Personally I think the intermediate sprints should only be worth 10-15 points, but anyway.
But yeah, currently the KoM jersey is for a decent rider who is willing to consistently go into the breakaway, kind of like some extension to the most combative award. Either way, it's something I ignore as well.
Wow I couldn't disagree more with this.
The green jersey is set out to be won by the best classics rider with current rules. The fact that intermediate sprints give so many points is why Sagan won in some of the previous years. Maybe you don't see it this year because Sagan actually won several sprint stages but think about the previous years (some of them Sagan won the jersey with zero wins just by going 3rd/4th in stages and getting into breakaways to get intermediate sprints and also grab a good result in a stage ending with a sprint that had hills or even climbs before). The green jersey is, in the past 4 or 5 years, saying who is the best classics rider as you want. Sagan won last year and the year before despite lack of sprint wins and that to me doesn't represent the green jersey since every year while growing up I was used to see the sprinters fight for that jersey and not have a huge amount of sprint points in the middle of a mountain stage to have a winless "sprinter" take the jersey. Nevertheless, this was probably Sagan's best performance in a TdF that I remember and he is more than deserving of his jersey (that's not the point of this, I'm not taking anything away from Sagan's value that even I can now appreciate).
Regarding the KOM jersey you have to remember who won it in previous years...you have Froome, Majka and Quintana in the 3 previous years IIRC. So you have 3 good climbers, one of them the best in the world and another one probably the second best. In this TdF the jersey is again going to a breakaway climber due to the freaking lack of proper mountain finishes (most mountain stages this year ended with a descent after a huge climb or even a flat few KMs). This highly discourages favourites to go for the stage and allows breaks to have much more success thus it seems normal that the jersey is going to another solid climber in Majka that is not really fighting for the GC this year.
Again, regarding the yellow jersey and being the best climber...one could argue that Quintana last year was the best climber but he didn't win or that in previous years Froome was the best climber yet Wiggins won in 2012 (2016 it seems Froome is clearly the best climber so the point is meh). Why? Because Froome gains time in all terrains (mountains, flat, TT), thus the better overall rider, thus the first in the GC. Yes one could argue that having Quintana win this would be a prize just to the best climber, sure, but previous winners (even Nibali) showed great performances on all terrains (even cobblestones in Nibali's case, although with a lot of help from Westra ^^) so I can't agree that the yellow jersey represents the best climber (just see Froome's first TdF victory..Quintana was the better climber and won the KOM while Froome won the Yellow or even Andy Schleck, was a much better climber than Contador in the "chain year" yet Bertie won in terrain that was not the mountains).
Froome had to crash for the tour to have the slightest excitement...
Bardet deserved this win, did the whole climb on his own despite making the difference on the descent. Froome even crashing very badly finished top10 stage losing only a few secs, the guy was bloodied all over. Team support was crucial here especially Poels Porte attacks and then blows. Quintana slightly better though not great, already on the podium.
Only fight left are the 2 podium places for 3 riders: Bardet, Quintana and Yates, although I don't think Yates will recover tomorrow.
Fuck man I can't take this after the giro
You mean the crashes affecting the leaders? At least Froome has (the best) team, Kruijswijk hadn't.
The superiority of Froome and Sky is undeniable, Quintana just keeping the pace, not a good TdF for him, he was even thinking about retiring today, and he is onn the podium now lol. Bardet deserved the victory and being in the podium, not expecting too much about tomorrows stage, it seems that nobody has anything left.
On July 23 2016 01:06 palexhur wrote: The superiority of Froome and Sky is undeniable, Quintana just keeping the pace, not a good TdF for him, he was even thinking about retiring today, and he is onn the podium now lol. Bardet deserved the victory and being in the podium, not expecting too much about tomorrows stage, it seems that nobody has anything left.
Froome crashes, immediately gets a bike from one of his half a dozen team mates cushioning him and proceeds with Poels looking after him every step of the way. They would have jumped in front of him if someone tried to take a shot.
Mollema crashes, completely alone, no team mates and nearly drops out of the top 10.
Can Quintana claim 2nd, being only 16 seconds down? Tomorrow is a day where it'll be very easy to crack, and you could go down the Mollema route. I think from 2-5th place, the podium is all up in the air still.
An impressive tour from Kreuiziger, in 12th place, being less than 10 minutes down, and the only one out of the 12 still 18 minutes down or less... I hope this result finds him a good contract as a super domestique (maybe even GC rider in a worse team), it's been very impressive from him.
On July 21 2016 05:32 FiWiFaKi wrote: I personally think the Green Jersey is good, depending on the point breakdown on flat/mid/mountain stages, it can either say who's the best sprinter, or the best all-rounder. Currently it is focused on the best sprinters, and I think it demonstrates that very well... I'd be very hard pressed to argue that Sagan isn't at least the top 2 sprinter in the peloton (after biking for 200km), with Cavendish being the one who likely beats him out. But before Cav dropped out, they were very close, Sagan just makes up for it for being a really good all-rounder.
I associate the yellow jersey with being the best climber, and since we value that the most, it's the person who wins the entire TdF. I suppose there's also a bit of TT that goes into it, but overall, being able to stay in the peloton on flat stages doesn't scream oh wow, this guy is so well rounded... Getting good finishes with sprints, tough descents, hills... In my eyes it's like the best classics rider should be the one who wins the Green Jersey, though right now it emphasis the sprinters a bit more. Personally I think the intermediate sprints should only be worth 10-15 points, but anyway.
But yeah, currently the KoM jersey is for a decent rider who is willing to consistently go into the breakaway, kind of like some extension to the most combative award. Either way, it's something I ignore as well.
Wow I couldn't disagree more with this.
The green jersey is set out to be won by the best classics rider with current rules. The fact that intermediate sprints give so many points is why Sagan won in some of the previous years. Maybe you don't see it this year because Sagan actually won several sprint stages but think about the previous years (some of them Sagan won the jersey with zero wins just by going 3rd/4th in stages and getting into breakaways to get intermediate sprints and also grab a good result in a stage ending with a sprint that had hills or even climbs before). The green jersey is, in the past 4 or 5 years, saying who is the best classics rider as you want. Sagan won last year and the year before despite lack of sprint wins and that to me doesn't represent the green jersey since every year while growing up I was used to see the sprinters fight for that jersey and not have a huge amount of sprint points in the middle of a mountain stage to have a winless "sprinter" take the jersey. Nevertheless, this was probably Sagan's best performance in a TdF that I remember and he is more than deserving of his jersey (that's not the point of this, I'm not taking anything away from Sagan's value that even I can now appreciate).
Regarding the KOM jersey you have to remember who won it in previous years...you have Froome, Majka and Quintana in the 3 previous years IIRC. So you have 3 good climbers, one of them the best in the world and another one probably the second best. In this TdF the jersey is again going to a breakaway climber due to the freaking lack of proper mountain finishes (most mountain stages this year ended with a descent after a huge climb or even a flat few KMs). This highly discourages favourites to go for the stage and allows breaks to have much more success thus it seems normal that the jersey is going to another solid climber in Majka that is not really fighting for the GC this year.
Again, regarding the yellow jersey and being the best climber...one could argue that Quintana last year was the best climber but he didn't win or that in previous years Froome was the best climber yet Wiggins won in 2012 (2016 it seems Froome is clearly the best climber so the point is meh). Why? Because Froome gains time in all terrains (mountains, flat, TT), thus the better overall rider, thus the first in the GC. Yes one could argue that having Quintana win this would be a prize just to the best climber, sure, but previous winners (even Nibali) showed great performances on all terrains (even cobblestones in Nibali's case, although with a lot of help from Westra ^^) so I can't agree that the yellow jersey represents the best climber (just see Froome's first TdF victory..Quintana was the better climber and won the KOM while Froome won the Yellow or even Andy Schleck, was a much better climber than Contador in the "chain year" yet Bertie won in terrain that was not the mountains).
Yeah, I don't agree with you either haha.
Look at 2015: if it wasn't for Sagan, 2nd-5th are all sprinters, are they were super close to winning. Sure, Sagan didn't win, but he had many stages where he was super close, and was the best consistent sprinter
Of all the sprinting stages: 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 4th, 7th... On top of that, he did well in 3 stages where sprinters normally wouldn't do well.
Look at 2014: Again, 2nd-5th, all sprinters.
Sagan results in sprints: 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 2nd, 3rd, NA, 9th... Plus 3 top 5 results where most sprinters wouldn't do well.
Look at 2013: Again, 2nd-5th, all sprinters
Sagan results in sprints: NA, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 4th... Plus 1 2nd place results where most sprinters wouldn't do well. Sagan would 100% the green jersey here if he only participated in sprints.
Look at 2012: Again, 2nd-5th, all sprinters
Sagan results in sprints: 1st, 6th, 1st, 5th, NA, 1st, 2nd, 9th (3rd in sprint), 3rd, 2nd. Sagan with a 6th and 2nd on non-sprint stages. Still would have easily won sprinting jersey without them.
Point is, Sagan is every year, without a question a top 3 sprinter, and usually 1st or 2nd best. This year I would say is an exception, where Cavendish was better than him, but can you really make an argument for a sprinter better than Sagan except him? So naturally, if Sagan is the 2nd best sprinter, but he's far better at everything else than any other sprinter, he'll get a few more points and win the jersey. I'm looking through the Classics results for this year, and I don't see anyone who can ride Classics and be anywhere close to winning the Green Jersey with the exception of this year (admit you were wrong ).
2015: 1st polka = 1st GC, 2nd polka = 2nd GC, 3rd = 9th GC, 4th = 16th GC, 5th = 29th GC... No real representation of good climbers, they were just people who went into the breakaway to get extra points, or the top people in GC, which were on top since they were 1st on the stages where it mattered.
2014: 1st polka = 44th GC, 2nd = 1st GC, 3rd = 54th GC, 4th = 3rd GC, 5th = 2nd GC... The two low placings were Rodriguez and Makja, two riders who definitely don't climb exceptionally compared to the GC group, they just like biking aggressive and always go into the breakaway.
2013: 1st polka = 2nd GC, 2nd = 1st GC, 3rd = 24th GC, 4th = 3rd GC, 5th = 37th GC... In this case, the two far out of GC were Rolland and Riblon, two riders who again, they are not top end riders, they just always go into the breakaway.
2012: 1st polka = 26th GC, 2nd = 40th GC, 3rd = 15th GC, 4th = 8th GC, 5th = 20th... This year is kind of odd, since it was the year of Bradley Wiggins. Though we see riders like Voeckler and Pierre, and honestly I don't remember that far back. But looks at the stage to stage results, one stage was a breakaway with 2 HC and 2 Cat 1 climbs... Though I don't know this year it might have actually been a decent representation of the best climber.
At least currently it's odd, because the best climber will more or less always win GC... So what happens if there's a lot of breakaways like this year, the best climber who likes going into that group of 20 every day will win... Or they wont let any breakaways, and then the rider in the top 5-10 who cares about it most will win, as the GC rider most of the time wont care enough to go full gas for 500m before the top of the climb. or the top GC rider will be so much better than he will just get it.
I suppose when it has value is when you have GC contenders like like Wiggins, Indurain, or Dumoulin that it'd matter. However right now, to me it seems like all of the top 12 GC are all pure climbers, I guess minus Froome, since he's so good at everything that he TT's pretty damn well. So anyway, in it's current state it's an odd jersey.
edit: Also, for Froome's first win in 2013, Froome won the polka dot jersey, and meh, climbing ability wise they were very similar, where Froome destroyed Quintana on the first climb, and then Quintana beat Froome in two climbs later on, but if you look at purely the time they made up on each other on mountain stages, Froome made up more time.
In 2015 Froome once again won the polka dot jersey over Quintana, where he beat him on Stage 10 to take first place, whereas Quintana beat him on two stages further on once again. Anyway, it's a very hit or miss jersey, and I'm not a fan, especially this year.
Pretty poor year. I'm happy for Dimension Data and Tom Dumoulin. Sky a-moved to victory pretty much. Still props to Froome for giving us few moments of brilliance ^^
Yeah, Froome was too good, congrats though, very well deserved. Just for fun, I wanted to make the best fantasy team, so, listing all that are 55 points/cost or better:
I believe that's every rider, so I'll pick the best from each category, and see where that ends up:
So: Yates, Froome, Majka, Bardet, Sagan, De Gendt, Pantano, Clement, and Avermaet... Now checking the cost: 106
Cost can be cut from either Froome -> Valverde, but that means there's 6 points that need to be spent elsewhere, so maybe Avermaet -> Cavendish and Clements -> Laporte... That'd be a net loss of 601 points... Or instead Avermaet -> Kristoff and Clements -> Kreuziger, which would be better at a net loss of 552.
Cutting the unclassified is out of the question, so you can try cutting Sagan -> Cavendish, and Avermaet -> Kristoff, but that's a net loss of 786. Only other one worth looking at is Bardet -> Navarro, which is a net loss of 624.
So there we go, best team is: 1) Valverde 2) Yates 3) Bardet 4) Majka 5) Sagan 6) De Gendt 7) Pantano 8) Kreuziger 9) Kristoff
So the perfect team would get 9268 points, versus.... fml, the site is down. Back up now, 8179, damn, that's pretty good.
edit: Since I was bored, I tried to make the best team for last year too: 1) Froome 2) Valverde 3) Bardet 4) Rolland 5) Greipel 6) Pauwels 7) Avermaet 8) Rowe 9) Sagan.... For a total of 10,078 points, compared to the best created team having a score of 8895.
got my late contribution to the tdf challenge ! (forgot to take my asthma medication, that was not a bright idea but at least i did something ^^) Typical of where i live: short and steep! https://www.strava.com/activities/654376537