|
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) Show nested quote +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
|
Seems like it'll be more of a battle for places 2 and 3, good job from Bauke and Dumoulin today!
|
On July 16 2016 00:52 Gjhc wrote:Show nested quote +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 16 2016 06:21 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +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 16 2016 07:09 Gjhc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 06:21 L_Master wrote: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=163719Check 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 16 2016 07:26 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 07:09 Gjhc wrote:On July 16 2016 06:21 L_Master wrote: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=163719Check 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.
|
Hey L_Master, weren't you going to make the climbing challenge this weekend?
|
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!
|
On July 16 2016 23:18 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Mountains Challenge
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.
|
Looks like a breakaway win today, lots of good climbers in a group of 30
|
On July 17 2016 21:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Looks like a breakaway win today, lots of good climbers in a group of 30
Sure. Dumoulin's hiding at the back of the group too, despite his win 2 days ago. A good rider to encourage for you
|
On July 17 2016 21:58 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2016 21:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Looks like a breakaway win today, lots of good climbers in a group of 30 Sure. Dumoulin's hiding at the back of the group too, despite his win 2 days ago. A good rider to encourage for you And he's attacked the breakaway at 68km to go! He must feel really strong
|
On July 17 2016 22:37 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2016 21:58 Agathon wrote:On July 17 2016 21:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Looks like a breakaway win today, lots of good climbers in a group of 30 Sure. Dumoulin's hiding at the back of the group too, despite his win 2 days ago. A good rider to encourage for you And he's attacked the breakaway at 68km to go! He must feel really strong
Predictable and sooooo good.
|
Sick breakaway: Dumoulin, Pozzovivo, Nibali, Pantano
Edit: bah didn't last long at all
|
|
|
|