Cobbled Carnage: If a team leader goes down, should the others take advantage?

[hfer07]

 

[red_flanders]

Look at the flat back on that man!! Pure class.

 

[Pippo_San]

Vino wait for no one is pure genius.

I imagine he'll appear to his Astana guys like in a daydream at the start of the Arenberg forest, and guide them to safety and glory.

Brilliant.

 

[mewmewmew13]

It's a race.

 

[hughmoore]

Its a race.

Bring it on!


Hugh

 

[Archibald]

I didnt answered the poll becouse my opinion is not there.
If the race is launched, you cant wait, al least if you have launched the race and for that reason a rider crash...it is part of the cycling...
Tomorrow the race will be launched from far, so there is no way to wait... but if nobody is putting the hammer down, and someone has bad luck, they should wait.

In fact, is the same opinion than the previous one...and it is what in the peloton is a rule not writted.

would you like a Valverde option?
"If I'm upright, peloton races. If I'm the one crashed, peloton waits."

Hinault option for me

 

[blaxland]

good to see most agree it will be on from the start to the finish.All riders new the cobbles would be part of this years tour so no excuses.May the best GC rider win..

 

[offbyone]

If the racing is on the racing is on. There are too many contenders to expect anyone to wait.

The only time I think waiting even comes into play in a grand tour is if the true podium contenders have been thinned out to 5 or less. Then on top of that these contenders are riding together when one is delayed. This should never come into play during the first week of the tour. Maybe not even the second.

 

[karlboss]

If the racing is on the racing is on. There are too many contenders to expect anyone to wait.

The only time I think waiting even comes into play in a grand tour is if the true podium contenders have been thinned out to 5 or less. Then on top of that these contenders are riding together when one is delayed. This should never come into play during the first week of the tour. Maybe not even the second.

Pretty much dead on. Where i get hazy is it's the third week, the stage finishes with an HC climb and then tricky descent. The race is a race in two, and one of those two pushes the pace on the descent and the other crashes. Do you wait? The point of pushing a descent is to put the other past his limits and have them pull back, why should you wait if they are too stupid to ride beyond their limits?Last year for example if I was Quintana I'd have waited for Froome, but not Contador as Contador exceeded his limit.

 

[LaFlorecita]

good to see most agree it will be on from the start to the finish.All riders new the cobbles would be part of this years tour so no excuses.May the best GC rider win..

But that is exactly the problem, isn't it? "May the best GC rider win"... This is a lottery, you can be the best GC rider on the cobbles yet still lose any chance to win the race. It isn't fair.

I for one hope no team will take advantage of a crash, ie go to the front and ride hard to distance a fallen team leader. If they're racing, I still don't like it but there is no way they would stop. I would even love it if the GC riders decided to just roll in together but I guess I'm the only one and that isn't going to happen anyway.

Better prepare myself for anger and tears and frustration......

 

[seldon71]

Don't wait and attack every set of cobbles, obviously. Too bad there ain't more of those cobbles, 'cause this kind of a stage could be a springboard for not-so-great climber to challenge overall (remember Voeckler 2011, not that it had anything to do with cobbles)...

I would also love to have every GC to include maybe two Ardennes Classic-style of 250 km stage of endless sharp hills. Remember Stage 6 of Giro'2012. That was a great stage - how much better would such stages be if they would actually be a key to win GC?

 

[King Boonen]

Some of the posts in this thread are ridiculous. You can crash anywhere! Mechanicals can happen at any point. Should they never have a tricky descent? Why not neutralise time gaps in flat stages with 50km to go? How about we just make the whole thing a time trial and send riders out one after another?

Every GC rider has the option of taking it easy or pushing the pace and being at the front. Cobbles are only difficult in large groups or when the pace is pushed, they call all make the choice to get through fine and possibly lose time or to take a risk (which they do every time a flat stage enters a town or narrow roads with more than 3km to go) and try and take time.

I'm hoping guys like Kwiatkowski lay it on the line and take minutes from Froome, Contador, Rolland et. al. and I also hope Nibali has a crack at it.

I'd personally like there to be more cobbles and a longer stage, it's a Grand TOUR, it should include as much varied road cycling as possible.

Well done to Prudhomme and ASO. Ever year people say it's the most boring tour in history because the result is pretty much known after the first couple of mountains. This stage has the potential to make the whole Tour exciting.

 

[CycloAndy]

The best riders shouldn't rely on misfortune to win. Nobody is suggesting stopping if the others crash but attacking precisely because someone has crashed is pretty low. A win through someone else's misfortune is not a win.

 

[LaFlorecita]

The best riders shouldn't rely on misfortune to win. Nobody is suggesting stopping if the others crash but attacking precisely because someone has crashed is pretty low. A win through someone else's misfortune is not a win.

^^^this is exactly my opinion.

 

[rhubroma]

Okay, maybe there isn’t much debate about this but I wonder how folks think it should be handled if a designated team leader goes down on the cobbles tomorrow?

Personally I think the race is the race, and while it introduces some randomness, the cobbles are a known obstacle and teams should have prepped hard for this stage and taken it into account when selecting their team. There is random chance all throughout the race.

I like riders who can race in all kinds of terrain and situations. Riders who can ride echelons, descend well, attack in odd places as well as ride well in the mountains and TT’s. Looking forward to seeing who can split the race. Wrecks or not, it’s damage will be done tomorrow.

What say you?

I realize mine is unpopular, but I really don't think Roubaix has its place in the modern Tour for the following reasons: todays cycling, for better or worse, is too specialized, thus today's Tour contenders don't do Paris-Roubaix. Secondly the technology in today's bicycles allows the riders to go at faster speeds than 30 years ago, and this makes the cobbles even more dangerous. Thirdly, it simply would be a shame-and I say for the Tour first of all-to loose a contender do to a crash in this type of course. The Tour is about winning in the mountains and the TT's. Roubaix, while beautiful in itself, is a relic from a bygone age that is for the pure specialists in April.

Not that the economic side interests me much, however, even today's cycling costs much more in sponsorship investments than it did during the romantic era (which is indeed part of the reason why this era isn't romantic). What this means is that millions of euros in investments for a team with a true contender, might go up in smoke on a stage like today. Now with the economic situation and cycling having increasing difficulty finding adequite sponsorship, why even cause second thought to a perhaps potential sponsor if he/she could loose a big investment on a stage like today?

Lastly it would be great to see Sparticus win on a stage like today, but would it really be worth it if tomorrow we don't get to see the grand battle in the mountains between a Froome and a Contador, because one of them crashed out today?

I think the risks thus far outweigh the benifits to the Tour.

 

[Netserk]

The best riders shouldn't rely on misfortune to win. Nobody is suggesting stopping if the others crash but attacking precisely because someone has crashed is pretty low. A win through someone else's misfortune is not a win.

So Merckx only really won 4 Tours? Thévenet only won a single one?

 

[rhubroma]

Some of the posts in this thread are ridiculous. You can crash anywhere! Mechanicals can happen at any point. Should they never have a tricky descent? Why not neutralise time gaps in flat stages with 50km to go? How about we just make the whole thing a time trial and send riders out one after another?

Every GC rider has the option of taking it easy or pushing the pace and being at the front. Cobbles are only difficult in large groups or when the pace is pushed, they call all make the choice to get through fine and possibly lose time or to take a risk (which they do every time a flat stage enters a town or narrow roads with more than 3km to go) and try and take time.

I'm hoping guys like Kwiatkowski lay it on the line and take minutes from Froome, Contador, Rolland et. al. and I also hope Nibali has a crack at it.

I'd personally like there to be more cobbles and a longer stage, it's a Grand TOUR, it should include as much varied road cycling as possible.

Well done to Prudhomme and ASO. Ever year people say it's the most boring tour in history because the result is pretty much known after the first couple of mountains. This stage has the potential to make the whole Tour exciting.

You are being specious. It's like saying if the cobbles can't be in then we should take out the mountains too. How stupid (and I can't even believe it was Sparticus himself that said it).

The mountains are the Tour, so the contenders having to deal with tricky descents is just part and parcel to winning. The cobbles, by contrast, have become a relic for pure specialists, who otherwise have no chance at being up with the grand tour contenders in the mountains.

What if several contenders crash out today? For the Tour this is would be a catastrophe, consequently the prospect should simply be avoided.

If a contender crashes out today it is more the organizations fault for putting this type of course in. By contrast if a contender crashes out on a descent it is entirely his own. Herein lies the difference I argue.

 

[Walkman]

Don't wait and attack every set of cobbles, obviously. Too bad there ain't more of those cobbles, 'cause this kind of a stage could be a springboard for not-so-great climber to challenge overall (remember Voeckler 2011, not that it had anything to do with cobbles)...

I would also love to have every GC to include maybe two Ardennes Classic-style of 250 km stage of endless sharp hills. Remember Stage 6 of Giro'2012. That was a great stage - how much better would such stages be if they would actually be a key to win GC?

I agree!

Why should GT:s always be about boring flat stages, time trials and mountains. I would love it (and I think most people would) if they were to throw in some different stages. Long cobbles stages, LBL stages and dirt road stages a lá Giro d'Italia 2010.

Try and mix it up and give other riders than just pure climbers a chance at the Tour.

 

[rhubroma]

I agree!

Why should GT:s always be about boring flat stages, time trials and mountains. I would love it (and I think most people would) if they were to throw in some different stages. Long cobbles stages, LBL stages and dirt road stages a lá Giro d'Italia 2010.

Try and mix it up and give other riders than just pure climbers a chance at the Tour.

Because its a Grand Tour, not the classics.

PS: the Giro is not about boring flat stages to the degree the Tour is, but flat stages give the sprinters a chance to shine. In fact the Tour is the Tour because it allows the best in their respective disciplines to demonstrate who is the best in their respective differences, with one caveat that the overall winner is the best at the ones that count for GC: i.e. the mountains and timetrials. Well he doesn't have to be the absolute best in either of them, but nearly so in both to win...as it should be.

 

[Walkman]

Because its a Grand Tour, not the classics.

PS: the Giro is not about boring flat stages to the degree the Tour is, but flat stages give the sprinters a chance to shine. In fact the Tour is the Tour because it allows the best in their respective disciplines to demonstrate who is the best in their respective differences, with one caveat that the overall winner is the best at the ones that count for GC: i.e. the mountains and timetrials. Well he doesn't have to be the absolute best in either of them, but nearly so in both to win...as it should be.

I don't buy the argument, "it's always been like this".

There used to be two stages each day and some stages could be 400km. Change is not always bad. Heck, the tour has seen 100km mountain time trials.

And I am not suggesting they should change the Tour, just mix it up a bit more.

 

[Warhawk]

The best riders shouldn't rely on misfortune to win. Nobody is suggesting stopping if the others crash but attacking precisely because someone has crashed is pretty low. A win through someone else's misfortune is not a win.

Bingo. A mechanical or a crash should never be the impetus for your attack, but you shouldn't have to cease an attack upon receiving word of a mechanical or crash.

 

[rhubroma]

I don't buy the argument, "it's always been like this".

There used to be two stages each day and some stages could be 400km. Change is not always bad. Heck, the tour has seen 100km mountain time trials.

And I am not suggesting they should change the Tour, just mix it up a bit more.

What's there not to buy? And 400 km long stages were part of the stone age of the sport.

I was referring to modern cycling, which, like it or not, has developed in an age of increased advancement on all fronts, preparation, bike technology, peaking, etc.

The Tour deserves the best physical specimen - a combination of natural ability (genetics) and preparation - that year in the sport, which is quantifiable in how fast you can go up mountain passes and how fast you can ride on your own in the time trials. Besides, it has always been this way since they started riding up mountains and against the clock together in the event.

The great one day racers, used to also be Tour contenders. No more. The amount of effort and ability that it takes to win the Tour nowadays has meant that the one day events largely get sacrificed. By contrast a PR winner, or even a LBL winner isn't normally going to be among the real contenders at the Tour.

I don't mind mixing it up with more difficult terrain in the non mtf stages, however, I think the organization should respect todays riders more and realize that the days when Tour candidates road PR are long since over.

Like I said before, if the Tour were to even lose one main favorite because of this race it would be a catastrophe for the Tour first and foremost. Why take that risk? This is my point.

At any rate, the organization has itself seemed to recognize the folly of its choice, in taking the worst cobbled sections out of the race today due to the inclement weather.

One wonders if they would have forseen such a possibility and, therefore, would they have decided to put a course in that is itself controversial and now somewhat neutered besides.

I say that's bad planning.

 

[red_flanders]

I realize mine is unpopular, but I really don't think Roubaix has its place in the modern Tour for the following reasons: todays cycling, for better or worse, is too specialized, thus today's Tour contenders don't do Paris-Roubaix. Secondly the technology in today's bicycles allows the riders to go at faster speeds than 30 years ago, and this makes the cobbles even more dangerous. Thirdly, it simply would be a shame-and I say for the Tour first of all-to loose a contender do to a crash in this type of course. The Tour is about winning in the mountains and the TT's. Roubaix, while beautiful in itself, is a relic from a bygone age that is for the pure specialists in April.

Not that the economic side interests me much, however, even today's cycling costs much more in sponsorship investments than it did during the romantic era (which is indeed part of the reason why this era isn't romantic). What this means is that millions of euros in investments for a team with a true contender, might go up in smoke on a stage like today. Now with the economic situation and cycling having increasing difficulty finding adequite sponsorship, why even cause second thought to a perhaps potential sponsor if he/she could loose a big investment on a stage like today?

Lastly it would be great to see Sparticus win on a stage like today, but would it really be worth it if tomorrow we don't get to see the grand battle in the mountains between a Froome and a Contador, because one of them crashed out today?

I think the risks thus far outweigh the benifits to the Tour.

Good to have this perspective on the thread. I disagree, but well-said.