2015 tour de france stage 3, Antwerpen-Hoei 159.5km

Page 43 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Cimber said:
wwabbit said:
Cimber said:
wwabbit said:
Cimber said:
Seems Martin might actually have been cheated and should have gotten yellow since Froome was actually 1 sec behind Jrod (but got same time) and according to miliseconds after the TT on stage one Martin shoudl have gotten the jersey if Froome had been clocked correctly 1 sec behind JRod

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=da&sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsporten.tv2.dk%2Fcykling%2Ftour%2F2015-07-07-tour-fejl-blev-tony-martin-snydt-for-den-gule-troeje
Did you read the article you just quoted? It says 0.93 seconds, which by the rules for many years have meant that it counts as same time.
Yep rules are rules, but if you actually clock the correct time (with miliseconds) it seems as if Martin would have gotten yellow by 0,06 secs.
So how was he "cheated" ?
He was "cheated" in the sense that the rules are made in a way that its not always the guy who used less time you is actually in the yellow jersey. In theory we could have a Tour winner who did the Tour a little slower than no.1 (disregarding time bonusses).

So while Froome is "legally" in yellow, Martin is morally in a way :)

Anyways, we are in 2015 now, maybe its time they reviewed these rules in the future, since measuring actual time in 0,0 and 0,00 seconds is not really a big deal these days.
Martin was 2 places behind Froome in the Stage 2 sprint finish.
Are you so sure that gap was less than 0.07 seconds?

In any case, we don't know what Froome's actual official lead over Martin is, it could be anything between 0.50s to 1.50s
 
Jan 3, 2011
4,596
0
0
Are you so sure that gap was less than 0.07 seconds?

Have no idea. But I get your point, though, when they are in the wheel of another rider, so going down to 0,00 makes no real sense since we woukld have gaps all over the place all the time. So maybe just make it so that if the cap is 0,49 secs or less you round down and 0,50 or more you round up (just one normally do in "real life"). Seems a little off that 0,93 is rounded down. I know rules are rules but seems a bit daft to me personally :)

And in any case it is a fun case that the leadin rider is actually a little slower than no.2.

In any case I really hope Martin can do something today. He has been so close 3 times now. He derserves it. It is not as if Froome would get it back soon enough anyways :D
 
Cimber said:
wwabbit said:
Cimber said:
wwabbit said:
Cimber said:
Seems Martin might actually have been cheated and should have gotten yellow since Froome was actually 1 sec behind Jrod (but got same time) and according to miliseconds after the TT on stage one Martin shoudl have gotten the jersey if Froome had been clocked correctly 1 sec behind JRod

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=da&sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsporten.tv2.dk%2Fcykling%2Ftour%2F2015-07-07-tour-fejl-blev-tony-martin-snydt-for-den-gule-troeje
Did you read the article you just quoted? It says 0.93 seconds, which by the rules for many years have meant that it counts as same time.
Yep rules are rules, but if you actually clock the correct time (with miliseconds) it seems as if Martin would have gotten yellow by 0,06 secs.
So how was he "cheated" ?
He was "cheated" in the sense that the rules are made in a way that its not always the guy who used less time you is actually in the yellow jersey. In theory we could have a Tour winner who did the Tour a little slower than no.1 (disregarding time bonusses).

So while Froome is "legally" in yellow, Martin is morally in a way :)

Anyways, we are in 2015 now, maybe its time they reviewed these rules in the future, since measuring actual time in 0,0 and 0,00 seconds is not really a big deal these days.
If you do it like that Martin is also 1 more second down as Hesjedal passed the line 40 seconds behind Rodriguez, Martin was a bit behind that (about a second). Anyway thats not how cycling works and Im glad it doesnt.
 
Jan 3, 2011
4,596
0
0
If you do it like that Martin is also 1 more second down as Hesjedal passed the line 40 seconds behind Rodriguez, Martin was a bit behind that (about a second). Anyway thats not how cycling works and Im glad it doesnt.
If read on what I wrote later on, ypu would see that I agree you cant do it in miliseconds (for practical reasons when in the wheel of another). But instead I think it would make sense that gaps were rounded down if 0,49 secs or lower and up if 0,50 seconds or higher (like you normally do). Instead of fx 0,99 being rounded down.
 
Cimber said:
If you do it like that Martin is also 1 more second down as Hesjedal passed the line 40 seconds behind Rodriguez, Martin was a bit behind that (about a second). Anyway thats not how cycling works and Im glad it doesnt.
If read on what I wrote later on, ypu would see that I agree you cant do it in miliseconds (for practical reasons when in the wheel of another). But instead I think it would make sense that gaps were rounded down if 0,49 secs or lower and up if 0,50 seconds or higher (like you normally do). Instead of fx 0,99 being rounded down.
I think 0.99 is fine, especially when you have bunch sprints with small gaps in between which could make a pretty big difference if a small gap appears somewhere in the back. And as I think consitency is better then changing per stage I like the 0.99s on each stage.
 
Jan 3, 2011
4,596
0
0
Ruudz0r said:
Cimber said:
If you do it like that Martin is also 1 more second down as Hesjedal passed the line 40 seconds behind Rodriguez, Martin was a bit behind that (about a second). Anyway thats not how cycling works and Im glad it doesnt.
If read on what I wrote later on, ypu would see that I agree you cant do it in miliseconds (for practical reasons when in the wheel of another). But instead I think it would make sense that gaps were rounded down if 0,49 secs or lower and up if 0,50 seconds or higher (like you normally do). Instead of fx 0,99 being rounded down.
I think 0.99 is fine, especially when you have bunch sprints with small gaps in between which could make a pretty big difference if a small gap appears somewhere in the back. And as I think consitency is better then changing per stage I like the 0.99s on each stage.
I wouldnt want different rules pr stage (though you ofcourse already have that on on TTs), but ratehr 0,5 to be the marker on all stages (except TTs). 0,5 is not as little as you think. But I guess we can just agree to disagree (0:
 
Apr 30, 2014
202
0
0
Some people have wondered if the tour has enough medical personnal. This year there are 10 doctors, 5 nurses, 7 ambulances, 2 doctor cars and 1 x-ray truck accomponying the tour.
 
Cimber said:
If read on what I wrote later on, ypu would see that I agree you cant do it in miliseconds (for practical reasons when in the wheel of another). But instead I think it would make sense that gaps were rounded down if 0,49 secs or lower and up if 0,50 seconds or higher (like you normally do). Instead of fx 0,99 being rounded down.
But it is not about to the nearest second: it is whether there is a clear, completed second. 17 years and 6 months is 18 to the nearest year, but won't entitle you to vote or drink.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY