- Aug 9, 2015
- 217
- 0
- 0
LBL's climbs have every right to be more decisive than Amstel's. That's why Amstel has more than twice the number, because they need the sheer number of them. There doesn't necessarily need to be decisive race-winning moves taking place earlier, there needs to be more shedding of the domestiques; the pace should need to be high earlier to burn off opposition domestiques, so that the later obstacles mean more. As long as late obstacles are tough enough that the riders want to save all their energy for the, we'll get a lower early pace and therefore more domestiques will stay close at hand, which will also mean riders' legs are less tired when they get to the late obstacles because they've not had to work as hard.GuyIncognito said:Libertine Seguros said:Precisely. RAF ruined all the climbs before it because riders are scared of it, now they put another one in the run-in to neuter the action until then. They need to be putting more climbs in the middle portion of the race and fewer, or at least easier ones, in the immediate run-in. Apart from 2010 and 2012 nearly every recent edition has played out like this.burning said:Gigs_98 said:La Redoute is over, we should attack now.
Seriously what do these riders think?
The new climb makes everything even worse for spectators, none of the favorites will move until that climb
That would make for a very similar course to Amstel. We know how that turns out
DNP-Old said:Betancur is in Godlike form. About to podium Romande.
Ah.Thanks.However 2013 featured Colonster instead of RAF and it was a bit better.Libertine Seguros said:Yes, but it doesn't change that RAF killed off earlier moves, because people were afraid of it, and so everything was very tentative until we got to it. It was also quite new at that point, once riders become used to a new parcours the dynamic changes. Look at MSR and how each time a new climb is added the size of the bunch contesting the win reduced, then started to increase again, or how for a few years with the new run-in Paris-Tours saw groups defeat the sprinters, only for the sprinters to then fight their way back.Forever The Best said:Didn't Andy Schleck attack in RAF in 2009 and win the race?Libertine Seguros said:Precisely. RAF ruined all the climbs before it because riders are scared of it, now they put another one in the run-in to neuter the action until then. They need to be putting more climbs in the middle portion of the race and fewer, or at least easier ones, in the immediate run-in. Apart from 2010 and 2012 nearly every recent edition has played out like this.burning said:Gigs_98 said:La Redoute is over, we should attack now.
Seriously what do these riders think?
The new climb makes everything even worse for spectators, none of the favorites will move until that climb
Also didn't Schlecks and Gilbert attacked on RAF on 2011 as well?
RAF saw pretty good action the first few times (although it means less action in the race until that point) but as riders are more accustomed to how to ride it now, it's becoming less decisive than it used to be. Here's hoping for a change to that this year.
del1962 said:Is Richie still there?
That's definitely not good.Max Rockatansky said:Alaphilippe wasn't barely breathing on RAF.
bruhJancouver said:del1962 said:Is Richie still there?
Dont think so. This is not an important race for him. You know, TDU is much bigger, more important race for every Aussie.![]()
RAF didn't feature in 2013 thoughLibertine Seguros said:LBL's climbs have every right to be more decisive than Amstel's. That's why Amstel has more than twice the number, because they need the sheer number of them. There doesn't necessarily need to be decisive race-winning moves taking place earlier, there needs to be more shedding of the domestiques; the pace should need to be high earlier to burn off opposition domestiques, so that the later obstacles mean more. As long as late obstacles are tough enough that the riders want to save all their energy for the, we'll get a lower early pace and therefore more domestiques will stay close at hand, which will also mean riders' legs are less tired when they get to the late obstacles because they've not had to work as hard.GuyIncognito said:Libertine Seguros said:Precisely. RAF ruined all the climbs before it because riders are scared of it, now they put another one in the run-in to neuter the action until then. They need to be putting more climbs in the middle portion of the race and fewer, or at least easier ones, in the immediate run-in. Apart from 2010 and 2012 nearly every recent edition has played out like this.burning said:Gigs_98 said:La Redoute is over, we should attack now.
Seriously what do these riders think?
The new climb makes everything even worse for spectators, none of the favorites will move until that climb
That would make for a very similar course to Amstel. We know how that turns out
Or at least stick an easier climb like Colonster between RAF and St-Nic to stop the domestiques chasing back on if any moves ARE made on RAF.
