2016 TdF, Stage 7: L'Isle-Jourdain → Lac de Payolle (163km)

Page 30 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Armchair cyclist said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
Yes, they didn't apply the 3km rule. Rather they treated the 3km line as the finishing line for timing purposes.
True, but not for placings, so what if...
Armchair cyclist said:
And I bet they are glad that Impey and Navarro didn't catch up with and pass Cummings in the last 3 km, or they would have to give 1st place a slower time than 3rd place.
And what if they had not had 3km timing equipment? Presumably there is not any on most mountain stages.
The order of events and decisions is important. They made the decision to treat the 3km line as the finishing line for the purposes of time (but not placings) after the race was over. That is, they made that decision knowing that Impey and Navarro had not caught Cummings and already having the 3km timing capacity in place. If other things had happened or they did not have the requisite equipment in place, they would have made a different decision.

It was a sensible ad hoc way of dealing with a very unusual situation. Not the application of a free floating set of guidelines.
 
Re: Re:

TMP402 said:
bigcog said:
saganftw said:
SeriousSam said:
Anything known yet about what that exchange between Froome and Valverde was about?
froome was talking,valverde pretending he speaks english
Apparently Froome speaks perfect spanish, according to Valverde.
Is that true?
I know he can speak French and Italian, I didn't know about Spanish.
 
Re: Re:

Armchair cyclist said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
Yes, they didn't apply the 3km rule. Rather they treated the 3km line as the finishing line for timing purposes.
True, but not for placings, so what if...
Armchair cyclist said:
And I bet they are glad that Impey and Navarro didn't catch up with and pass Cummings in the last 3 km, or they would have to give 1st place a slower time than 3rd place.
And what if they had not had 3km timing equipment? Presumably there is not any on most mountain stages.
they don't need the equipement for the 3km timming, all the bikes have that locator, so they have access to that information already.
 
Re: Re:

Zinoviev Letter said:
Armchair cyclist said:
In the normal application of the 3 km rule, if there are riders ahead of the crash affected group, then at least one rider from the crash affected group needs to get to the finish quickly to keep the gap within reason. They crossed the line at 4:29, and no-one crossed between Van Avermaet and the Maté-led group, but now recorded as 3:37, so has not happened today: they have been allocated at time equal to their gap at 3 km to Cummings.

Not only that, but so have riders unaffected by the crash. Nibali finished @ 2:14, but allocated 1:58, Van Avermaet finished @3:04, but now listed as 2:57.

And what about the times behind? Was Pinot, for example, given his gap at 3km to go, or at the line?

ASO are very lucky that the last 600m kicker had not been deemed to be enough to not categorise it as a flat finish, they would not have had 3km timing equipment.

And I bet they are glad that Impey and Navarro didn't catch up with and pass Cummings in the last 3 km, or they would have to give 1st place a slower time than 3rd place.

Won't make a lot of difference in Paris, but what a farce.
Yes, they didn't apply the 3km rule. Rather they treated the 3km line as the finishing line for timing purposes.
I too think it's a joke. It would have been much better if the 3km rule was applied. Yates had less than 10 seconds and could still have been caught, yet he got the white jersey from Alaphilippe. The bunch decided (for some arbitrary reason) to roll home, why should they get rewarded for that?! Bullocks.
 
Apr 11, 2011
113
0
0
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
Armchair cyclist said:
In the normal application of the 3 km rule, if there are riders ahead of the crash affected group, then at least one rider from the crash affected group needs to get to the finish quickly to keep the gap within reason. They crossed the line at 4:29, and no-one crossed between Van Avermaet and the Maté-led group, but now recorded as 3:37, so has not happened today: they have been allocated at time equal to their gap at 3 km to Cummings.

Not only that, but so have riders unaffected by the crash. Nibali finished @ 2:14, but allocated 1:58, Van Avermaet finished @3:04, but now listed as 2:57.

And what about the times behind? Was Pinot, for example, given his gap at 3km to go, or at the line?

ASO are very lucky that the last 600m kicker had not been deemed to be enough to not categorise it as a flat finish, they would not have had 3km timing equipment.

And I bet they are glad that Impey and Navarro didn't catch up with and pass Cummings in the last 3 km, or they would have to give 1st place a slower time than 3rd place.

Won't make a lot of difference in Paris, but what a farce.
Yes, they didn't apply the 3km rule. Rather they treated the 3km line as the finishing line for timing purposes.
I too think it's a joke. It would have been much better if the 3km rule was applied. Yates had less than 10 seconds and could still have been caught, yet he got the white jersey from Alaphilippe. The bunch decided (for some arbitrary reason) to roll home, why should they get rewarded for that?! Bullocks.
Nonsense. The whole of the lead group was delayed by the 1km inflatable coming down. They were going at full speed (chasing Yates), had to come to a complete stop, get under the banner (mostly one at a time) and then start riding again. The 3km rule could only have been applied if at least one rider had avoided the incident so that they could give his time to the rest.

Ideally they would have liked to take the times at the 1km mark but I understand they only have that facility at 3km.

Anyone who was dropped on the Col d'Aspin was unlikely to make much time up in the last 1km with the drag up to the line and the fact the main group of favourites were at full pelt before the incident. As unlikely as it is what if GVA won the TDF because of the time he gained by the delay? IMO taking the times at 3km was the most common sense solution. One of the few riders who possibly gained or lost time was Yates who may well have been caught in the run in. But you can't make decisions based upon what might be only what is and they know what the time gaps were at 3km. They can't guess what they might have been at the finish line.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY