2016 Critérium du Dauphiné, 2.UWT, June 5-12

[RattaKuningas]

I was surprised actually how weak Team Sky attacks were. I really thought they were stronger but perhaps the cat 3 wasn't for them.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Re: Re:

btw I'm still laughing my *** off at the guys claiming valgren had any chance today :L

we get it, you like to laugh at folks predictions

I like to laugh at you telling him he likes to laugh at predictions

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Re:

Huh? Either I don't understand what you wrote in your first paragraph or you misunderstood me. There still has to be a full second between the two wheels, I just think the second should be between the two riders' front wheels.

Edit: an illustration of how the rule is now.

I know, but the point it, that if you sit front wheel to back wheel, you lose no time, so it should still be the back wheel, if t here is a gap.

What you are effectively doing, is giving the guy in front a full bike length, if there is a gap over 1 second (where if there was no gap, sitting on the back wheel would be fine for no time loss)

See what I mean?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

That last 1.5km looks perfect to lose time if you're poorly positioned. I bet 1 or 2 GC contenders will lose time. I'll go for Aru (bold, I know )

36th Aru +21s

 

[LaFlorecita]

Hopefully it means Rosa will be supported for the GC

 

[portugal11]

I was banned yesterday only because this forum is frequented by some whiner people.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Re:

That last 1.5km looks perfect to lose time if you're poorly positioned. I bet 1 or 2 GC contenders will lose time. I'll go for Aru (bold, I know )

36th Aru +21s

Ouch, and I thought Contador didnt look good

And although I know that you all say that is just like expected from Contador, are you all not even a little bit worried? I mean yeah he never was good on this sort of finish but he really tried to follow and easily got passed also by riders you wouldnt expect to be super strong on this kind of climb too. However at the same time I think that an absolutely superb Froome also could have finished a little bit higher.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

And although I know that you all say that is just like expected from Contador, are you all not even a little bit worried? I mean yeah he never was good on this sort of finish but he really tried to follow and easily got passed also by riders you wouldnt expect to be super strong on this kind of climb too. However at the same time I think that an absolutely superb Froome also could have finished a little bit higher.

I'm a little bit worried because he can't afford to lose seconds like this, today he was saved by the riders in front of him, but he could have lost time just as easily. But I'm not worried about his shape, this means nothing in that regard.

 

[Kokoso]

Re: Re:

IMO Kwito always completely sits up when he doesn't have it, he just doesn't seem to care at that point anymore. Anyways, Im quite sure Henao, Landa and Poels went with everything they had - they will be more valuable being high in the GC and for Landa and Heano, they aren't 100% for the Tour still so they will obviously give it their all.
Also this is way different from Sky 12/13. While Froome is the big leader, in a race like the Dauphine when Froome isn't 2013-levels, there is much more room on stages like this. And there will be in the following days as well

Agreed, although I think Landa was perhaps just setting up Henao's attack, because he went on a relatively flat part of the climb - which was completely opposed to his strengths.

It was a strange climb though and difficult to read too much into it I think. You had rouleurs and puncheurs like Herrada and GVA alongside GC contenders - with quite a few reasonably climbers nowhere to be seen.

Kreuziger, for example, lost nearly a minute in the lasst 2-3km. He imploded way more than Landa and Henao, without putting in anywhere near such an attack.

Oh man...Kreuziger was pulling bunch as late as 1 km to go. He probably just let go then.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

IMO Kwito always completely sits up when he doesn't have it, he just doesn't seem to care at that point anymore. Anyways, Im quite sure Henao, Landa and Poels went with everything they had - they will be more valuable being high in the GC and for Landa and Heano, they aren't 100% for the Tour still so they will obviously give it their all.
Also this is way different from Sky 12/13. While Froome is the big leader, in a race like the Dauphine when Froome isn't 2013-levels, there is much more room on stages like this. And there will be in the following days as well

Agreed, although I think Landa was perhaps just setting up Henao's attack, because he went on a relatively flat part of the climb - which was completely opposed to his strengths.

It was a strange climb though and difficult to read too much into it I think. You had rouleurs and puncheurs like Herrada and GVA alongside GC contenders - with quite a few reasonably climbers nowhere to be seen.

Kreuziger, for example, lost nearly a minute in the lasst 2-3km. He imploded way more than Landa and Henao, without putting in anywhere near such an attack.

Oh man...Kreuziger was pulling bunch as late as 1 km to go. He probably just let go then.

Exactly - he was the one that tried to chase down the 'useless' attacks by Henao and Landa, yet ended up losing way more time than both of them. Not really sure why Sky have been singled out here, when Tinkoff and Astana were both way less impressive than them.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Huh? Either I don't understand what you wrote in your first paragraph or you misunderstood me. There still has to be a full second between the two wheels, I just think the second should be between the two riders' front wheels.

Edit: an illustration of how the rule is now.

I know, but the point it, that if you sit front wheel to back wheel, you lose no time, so it should still be the back wheel, if t here is a gap.

What you are effectively doing, is giving the guy in front a full bike length, if there is a gap over 1 second (where if there was no gap, sitting on the back wheel would be fine for no time loss)

See what I mean?

I don't see it as giving a bike length, but rather taking it back

If the first rider crosses the finish line with a speed of 54kmph on a bike that is 1.5m long including wheels, the difference between taking the time from his front wheel and his rear wheel is 0.1 second or 10%. Today, the time gap is thus practically 1.1'' on a flattish finish instead of just 1'', which I think is enough.

If it's a steep finish however, and the rider only goes 18kmph (perhaps sitting up to celebrate), then instead of 'gaining' 0.1'' to close the gap, the second rider gets 0.3'', which I think is unfair.

The extreme and hypothetical example would be if the rider went very slowly, so if he went 6kmph the second rider would get 0.9'' extra, whilst if the first rider crawled over the line at 1kmph then the second rider would get 5.4'' in addition to the 1'' before he would lose any time. Surely that is perverse?!

 

[Kokoso]

Re: Re:

Kreuziger, for example, lost nearly a minute in the lasst 2-3km. He imploded way more than Landa and Henao, without putting in anywhere near such an attack.

Oh man...Kreuziger was pulling bunch as late as 1 km to go. He probably just let go then.[/quote]
Exactly - he was the one that tried to chase down the 'useless' attacks by Henao and Landa, yet ended up losing way more time than both of them. Not really sure why Sky have been singled out here, when Tinkoff and Astana were both way less impressive than them.[/quote]
But I'm saying something different, so no exactly I'm trying to say that he didn not imlode, but let go. Those are two different things, you know. The other thing is that he was there with 1 km to go, not 2-3 kilometres, which seems quite important when one tries to demonstrate how someone imploded on given distance.
Edit: and of course Kreuziger didn't put in an attack, but had to chase down Landa and the other attack (while Landa was resting already). But anyway, main point is, that he probably let go contrary to Landa and Henao (or Poels).

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

But I'm saying something different, so no exactly I'm trying to say that he didn not imlode, but let go. Those are two different things, you know. The other thing is that he was there with 1 km to go, not 2-3 kilometres, which seems quite important when one tries to demonstrate how someone imploded on given distance.

Wait, you're the guy who always defends Czech riders, right? Just forget it then; I'm not going to get into a nationalist debate. All I was doing was highlighting how it's strange to single out Sky as having a poor day for not having many riders finishing high up - when other GC doms were even worse.

 

[Kokoso]

Re: Re:

But I'm saying something different, so no exactly I'm trying to say that he didn not imlode, but let go. Those are two different things, you know. The other thing is that he was there with 1 km to go, not 2-3 kilometres, which seems quite important when one tries to demonstrate how someone imploded on given distance.

Wait, you're the guy who always defends Czech riders, right? Just forget it then; I'm not going to get into a nationalist debate.

Oh, nice

 

[Kokoso]

Re: Re:

Wait, you're the guy who always defends Czech riders, right? Just forget it then; I'm not going to get into a nationalist debate. All I was doing was highlighting how it's strange to single out Sky as having a poor day for not having many riders finishing high up - when other GC doms were even worse.

Tinkoff doms probably lost too much in prologue to call them GC doms (what is that, GC dom?) and Contador was in the lead. So for Tinkoff it's to defend and for Sky to do something with that keep their doms up in the GC. My opinion is that Henao did good job today, but he was worst in the GC so he was the worst possibility of the three. Poels blew. Landa's attack was quite weak and easily chased down.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Re:

I was banned yesterday only because this forum is frequented by some whiner people.

Sounds to me like you are whining about it

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Re: Re:

Huh? Either I don't understand what you wrote in your first paragraph or you misunderstood me. There still has to be a full second between the two wheels, I just think the second should be between the two riders' front wheels.

Edit: an illustration of how the rule is now.

I know, but the point it, that if you sit front wheel to back wheel, you lose no time, so it should still be the back wheel, if t here is a gap.

What you are effectively doing, is giving the guy in front a full bike length, if there is a gap over 1 second (where if there was no gap, sitting on the back wheel would be fine for no time loss)

See what I mean?

I don't see it as giving a bike length, but rather taking it back

If the first rider crosses the finish line with a speed of 54kmph on a bike that is 1.5m long including wheels, the difference between taking the time from his front wheel and his rear wheel is 0.1 second or 10%. Today, the time gap is thus practically 1.1'' on a flattish finish instead of just 1'', which I think is enough.

If it's a steep finish however, and the rider only goes 18kmph (perhaps sitting up to celebrate), then instead of 'gaining' 0.1'' to close the gap, the second rider gets 0.3'', which I think is unfair.

The extreme and hypothetical example would be if the rider went very slowly, so if he went 6kmph the second rider would get 0.9'' extra, whilst if the first rider crawled over the line at 1kmph then the second rider would get 5.4'' in addition to the 1'' before he would lose any time. Surely that is perverse?!

I don't think you understand me properly.

My point is, that as long as you are within 1 second, it's the back wheel of the guy in front that counts.

There is no reason to change that to the front wheel, just because the gap is 1,1 second.

If you want to change it to the front wheel, it has to apply to both situations imho, so that you need to be within 1 second of a guys front wheel - not his back wheel.

 

[Netserk]

Huh? That's what I'm saying, that you need to be within 1'' of the front wheel. What two situations are you talking about, I can only see one. From front wheel to front wheel.

 

[Kwibus]

Re:

I was banned yesterday only because this forum is frequented by some whiner people.

Another member with a lack of self-awareness...

 

[Broccolidwarf]

Re:

Huh? That's what I'm saying, that you need to be within 1'' of the front wheel. What two situations are you talking about, I can only see one. From front wheel to front wheel.

I give up

 

[HelloDolly]

Surprised Poels blew( he did blow). He was very strong in last years Dauphine..Also surprised Landa lost time as best bet for SKY would be to have 2 riders high on GC...that could put pressure on Contador in the mountains as would have to cover 2 SKY riders ...Strange ..they did not look in top form..Kwait looks too heavy for climbing imo and was huffing from the moment he attacked...way way out...what was that about
Froome & Henao best fro SKY imo

 

[HelloDolly]

Also surprised at Aru & Pinot

 

[Lexman]

Re:

Also surprised at Aru & Pinot

Pinot finished together with Froome & Contador

even VDB2 finished with them

 

[Ataraxus]

I rewatched the finish and measured the time gaps (respective first wheel crossings)
The gap between Herrada and Gallopin results ~1.35-1.4s whereas the gap between Rolland and LLSanches at 0.95-1.0 s.
I don't have a detailled knowledge of the specific regulation and I'm not saying that the gap between Rolland and LuLu shouldn't be neglected. But to appoint 2 sec gap between Herrada and second and 0 sec between Rolland and LuLu is biased and does not reflect the truth gap-wise.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

I was banned yesterday only because this forum is frequented by some whiner people.

Another member with a lack of self-awareness...

The wrong kind though. Wouldn't want that.