- May 15, 2011
- 45,171
- 617
- 24,680
Re:
Do we have a finish time for him already? I only see an intermediate time.WheelofGear said:
- Jun 27, 2013
- 5,217
- 9
- 17,495
- May 15, 2011
- 45,171
- 617
- 24,680
Where are you guys seeing the times? I'm looking at the website and it doesn't show Kwiatkowski's time, for example.
- Aug 16, 2013
- 7,620
- 2
- 0
- May 15, 2011
- 45,171
- 617
- 24,680
- Jul 16, 2010
- 17,455
- 5
- 0
Re:
Didn't impress me at Milan-San Remo, Dwars door Vlaanderen or Gent-Wevelgem.
the asian said:
Didn't impress me at Milan-San Remo, Dwars door Vlaanderen or Gent-Wevelgem.
Re:
http://www.itzulia.eus/en/2017/6/results/
Intermediate
Kwiatkowski 20' 42" +53"
LaFlorecita said:
http://www.itzulia.eus/en/2017/6/results/
Intermediate
Kwiatkowski 20' 42" +53"
Re:
He wasn't offered a contract at the end of 2015. Katusha wanted to get rid of old riders, so they dumped him... to sign JVDB!Arredondo said:
- Jan 23, 2016
- 2,505
- 4
- 11,485
- May 15, 2011
- 45,171
- 617
- 24,680
Re: Re:
Thanks!Arredondo said:
No disrespect for the next mythical climber, pleaseArredondo said:
- May 15, 2011
- 45,171
- 617
- 24,680
Re: Re:
Yeah, just saw that, it takes the website quite a while to update the times, thoughrei_da_montanha said:
- Aug 6, 2010
- 6,884
- 6,216
- 23,180
Re: Re:
Making a beautifully balanced route is a wonderful thing, but I don't think that it's all about that. There should be variety in stage races, and that means that the occasional stage race can be badly balanced. For example, when the Vuelta first went and did half of the stages finishing uphill (with as usual, not a lot of ITT), maybe that isn't such a bad thing; it's something different; we'd never had that in a GT before. It's the repetition of a similar route the next year, and then the year after that is the problem. Then we have the recent TDF routes, which have done a good job with introducing semi regular lumpy stages; these appeared mostly absent during the Lance Armstrong era when the courses were pretty well balanced (around 5 genuine mountain stages and plenty of ITT), but with far too many boring pancake flat stages. These days the first week of the Tour tends to be a little more interesting.
In addition to some hilly - almost classic like - stages, the Tour also has more high mountain stages now; giving us - thankfully - even less pure sprinters stages (though I still think you can have a few of these). However, they have largely done away with the genuine multi (high) mountain stages, as well as reducing the distances of these stages drastically too. IMO in this instance less is more. I'd prefer to have 5 high mountain stages between 180-230 kms with at least 3 Cat 1 climbs in each, then 8 or 9 stages alpine stages that are hard, but not that hard, and mostly designed to see action in just the last fifteen minutes of the stage. And yet with the Tour now giving us more mountain stages, they've cut back horribley on ITT; we've only had one Tour since 2008 with over 100kms of ITT, and that used to be the norm. Given the greater control that 9 man teams have on mountain stages these days, the '90's quantity of ITT kms would be a little excessive now, but I still think that the discipline should be a key factor in most Tours. If Froome gains five minutes over Quintana then bad luck.
The 2015 parcours produced a close race, with an insane lack of ITT. Okay, much like the Vuelta experimenting with a ridiculous amount of uphill finishers, I'll accept that as a one-off, for overall balance. But now in 2017 we're faced with almost as crazy a course (though admittedly I quite like some of the mountain stages), 32 kms or so of ITT. A great balance in many ways doesn't have to be based on a single edition of a stage race (or a one day race like the WC for that matter), but the balance of that race over a period of years. For example we don't want the Tour to basically ignore the 'race of truth' to such an extent over the next few years, that Tom Dumoulin doesn't bother to give the GC a go there. Sure, he might fail anyway, but that isn't the point.
Of course there is a factor of tradition in races too, and this should be respected. Pais Vasco will tend to suit climbers a little more then perhaps Paris-Nice, much like the Giro historically does as opposed to the TDF. There is nothing wrong with all of that. There is with a stage race bringing out routes that are badly balanced in the same way during continuous years.
But back to this actual Pais Vasco course. It is of course a failure anyway for it's lack of encouragement of good racing. This stage race can produce a good parcours with having the ITT at the end, but I think that it helps the racing as well to have an ITT earlier (yet GT's don't like to put a decent length one in at the end of week 1 now, except for sometimes the Giro), such as the outstanding Paris-Nice parcours this year showed. As always it isn't just about the course either. The race itself wouldn't have been epic without the bad weather and Contador.
Libertine Seguros said:
Making a beautifully balanced route is a wonderful thing, but I don't think that it's all about that. There should be variety in stage races, and that means that the occasional stage race can be badly balanced. For example, when the Vuelta first went and did half of the stages finishing uphill (with as usual, not a lot of ITT), maybe that isn't such a bad thing; it's something different; we'd never had that in a GT before. It's the repetition of a similar route the next year, and then the year after that is the problem. Then we have the recent TDF routes, which have done a good job with introducing semi regular lumpy stages; these appeared mostly absent during the Lance Armstrong era when the courses were pretty well balanced (around 5 genuine mountain stages and plenty of ITT), but with far too many boring pancake flat stages. These days the first week of the Tour tends to be a little more interesting.
In addition to some hilly - almost classic like - stages, the Tour also has more high mountain stages now; giving us - thankfully - even less pure sprinters stages (though I still think you can have a few of these). However, they have largely done away with the genuine multi (high) mountain stages, as well as reducing the distances of these stages drastically too. IMO in this instance less is more. I'd prefer to have 5 high mountain stages between 180-230 kms with at least 3 Cat 1 climbs in each, then 8 or 9 stages alpine stages that are hard, but not that hard, and mostly designed to see action in just the last fifteen minutes of the stage. And yet with the Tour now giving us more mountain stages, they've cut back horribley on ITT; we've only had one Tour since 2008 with over 100kms of ITT, and that used to be the norm. Given the greater control that 9 man teams have on mountain stages these days, the '90's quantity of ITT kms would be a little excessive now, but I still think that the discipline should be a key factor in most Tours. If Froome gains five minutes over Quintana then bad luck.
The 2015 parcours produced a close race, with an insane lack of ITT. Okay, much like the Vuelta experimenting with a ridiculous amount of uphill finishers, I'll accept that as a one-off, for overall balance. But now in 2017 we're faced with almost as crazy a course (though admittedly I quite like some of the mountain stages), 32 kms or so of ITT. A great balance in many ways doesn't have to be based on a single edition of a stage race (or a one day race like the WC for that matter), but the balance of that race over a period of years. For example we don't want the Tour to basically ignore the 'race of truth' to such an extent over the next few years, that Tom Dumoulin doesn't bother to give the GC a go there. Sure, he might fail anyway, but that isn't the point.
Of course there is a factor of tradition in races too, and this should be respected. Pais Vasco will tend to suit climbers a little more then perhaps Paris-Nice, much like the Giro historically does as opposed to the TDF. There is nothing wrong with all of that. There is with a stage race bringing out routes that are badly balanced in the same way during continuous years.
But back to this actual Pais Vasco course. It is of course a failure anyway for it's lack of encouragement of good racing. This stage race can produce a good parcours with having the ITT at the end, but I think that it helps the racing as well to have an ITT earlier (yet GT's don't like to put a decent length one in at the end of week 1 now, except for sometimes the Giro), such as the outstanding Paris-Nice parcours this year showed. As always it isn't just about the course either. The race itself wouldn't have been epic without the bad weather and Contador.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 23K
Latest posts
-
Teams & Riders The Red Bull - Bora - Hansgrohe team thread- Latest: Ilmaestro99
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram