• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Cookson out, Lappartient in

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

King Of The Wolds said:
the asian said:
Serpentin said:
So goodbye Sky?


Hopefully !

Really? You want the company who provide the most sponsorship funding to the sport of professional cycling to just disappear?


I hate boring dull dominance by One Team.

The dissapearance of SKY will be beneficial to cycling just like the folding of USPS was.
With the New President's vision of banning Power Meters & possibly race radios it will make racing interesting again.
 
Re: Re:

the asian said:
King Of The Wolds said:
the asian said:
Serpentin said:
So goodbye Sky?


Hopefully !

Really? You want the company who provide the most sponsorship funding to the sport of professional cycling to just disappear?


I hate boring dull dominance by One Team.

The dissapearance of SKY will be beneficial to cycling just like the folding of USPS was.
With the New President's vision of banning Power Meters & possibly race radios it will make racing interesting again.
They dominate two races - the Tour de France and Paris-Nice. They have only won two of the 39 monuments they have competed in.

The way the sport is constructed means there will always be stronger teams and weaker teams. It's been this way since Alcyon.

As for power meters, whether riders have them or not, it won't change the way teams ride. They ride that way because they have spent hundreds of hours training to rider that way. Waiting until the final climb is just sensible tactics. Sky's main tactic is having the best rider (they may not have in future)
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
the asian said:
King Of The Wolds said:
the asian said:
Serpentin said:
So goodbye Sky?


Hopefully !

Really? You want the company who provide the most sponsorship funding to the sport of professional cycling to just disappear?


I hate boring dull dominance by One Team.

The dissapearance of SKY will be beneficial to cycling just like the folding of USPS was.
With the New President's vision of banning Power Meters & possibly race radios it will make racing interesting again.
They dominate two races - the Tour de France and Paris-Nice. They have only won two of the 39 monuments they have competed in.

The way the sport is constructed means there will always be stronger teams and weaker teams. It's been this way since Alcyon.

As for power meters, whether riders have them or not, it won't change the way teams ride. They ride that way because they have spent hundreds of hours training to rider that way. Waiting until the final climb is just sensible tactics.
Lol.
Fuente De, Guardiagrele, Formigal. Or this years Nice and Solaison stages. Or Risoul stage in 2016 Giro.
 
Tonton said:
I sure wish Lappartient the best. I don't want to see a "Lappartient is worse than Cookson, who was worse than McQuaid" thread. In the end , we'll judge him by his actions, not the blahblahblah. Sky will be just fine. Hopefully, small teams and small races will be the focus. Without them, there's no cycling culture. No base. The broader the base, the stronger the sport, the more money pours in. I.e. football/soccer .

Looks like Mc Quaid helped Lappartient to get the votes he needed.
 
Re: Re:

Forever The Best said:
Parker said:
Forever The Best said:
Parker said:
Waiting until the final climb is just sensible tactics.
Lol.
So what would you do?
Fuente De, Guardiagrele, Formigal, Risoul, Val Martello, Galibier or this years Solaison and Nice stages. Or the way Contador won at Angliru by escaping on Cordal descent.
A lot of those were last ditch attacks by someone with nothing to lose. In most cases they failed.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Forever The Best said:
Parker said:
Forever The Best said:
Parker said:
Waiting until the final climb is just sensible tactics.
Lol.
So what would you do?
Fuente De, Guardiagrele, Formigal, Risoul, Val Martello, Galibier or this years Solaison and Nice stages. Or the way Contador won at Angliru by escaping on Cordal descent.
Most of those were last ditch attacks by someone with nothing to lose. In most cases they failed.
??

Fuente De, Formigal, Risoul and Val Martello changed an entire GT. Guardiagrele and Solaison succeeded as well. Only Nice and Galibier failed. (And Nice was extremely close to succeeding and would have if not for Bahrain working pointlessly for a 4th place on the stage.) And Contador went for the stage at Cordal descent and took it.
Or Aprica 2010, but since Aprica is a easy climb and Mortirolo is very hard it is pretty different from the others.

Or many riders forming a huge break at L'Aquila 2010. Arroyo got a 2nd place because of that.
 
Re: Re:

Forever The Best said:
Fuente De, Formigal, Risoul and Val Martello changed an entire GT. Guardiagrele and Solaison succeeded as well. Only Nice and Galibier failed. (And Nice was extremely close to succeeding and would have if not for Bahrain working pointlessly for a 4th place on the stage.) And Contador went for the stage at Cordal descent and took it.
Or Aprica 2010, but since Aprica is a easy climb and Mortirolo is very hard it is pretty different from the others.

Or many riders forming a huge break at L'Aquila 2010. Arroyo got a 2nd place because of that.
Fuente De worked
Formigal - the beneficiary was Quintana, but it wasn't his tactic
Guariagerle needed a 30% climb
Solaison was won by an attack on the final climb
Risoul (which one?). Val Martello I missed

Anyway, these are exceptions. Last gasp efforts. In the meantime waiting for the final climb has a far superior success rate as a tactic.

And all the riders involved in those moves had power meters.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
the asian said:
King Of The Wolds said:
the asian said:
Serpentin said:
So goodbye Sky?


Hopefully !

Really? You want the company who provide the most sponsorship funding to the sport of professional cycling to just disappear?

I hate boring dull dominance by One Team.

The dissapearance of SKY will be beneficial to cycling just like the folding of USPS was.
With the New President's vision of banning Power Meters & possibly race radios it will make racing interesting again.
They dominate two races - the Tour de France and Paris-Nice. They have only won two of the 39 monuments they have competed in.

The way the sport is constructed means there will always be stronger teams and weaker teams. It's been this way since Alcyon.

As for power meters, whether riders have them or not, it won't change the way teams ride. They ride that way because they have spent hundreds of hours training to rider that way. Waiting until the final climb is just sensible tactics. Sky's main tactic is having the best rider (they may not have in future)

When one team is hording as much talent as Sky it lessens the chance that the smaller budgeted teams will be able to get the results necessary to be successful. Instead of some of these riders riding in support they would be actually competing for the win themselves.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Forever The Best said:
Fuente De, Formigal, Risoul and Val Martello changed an entire GT. Guardiagrele and Solaison succeeded as well. Only Nice and Galibier failed. (And Nice was extremely close to succeeding and would have if not for Bahrain working pointlessly for a 4th place on the stage.) And Contador went for the stage at Cordal descent and took it.
Or Aprica 2010, but since Aprica is a easy climb and Mortirolo is very hard it is pretty different from the others.

Or many riders forming a huge break at L'Aquila 2010. Arroyo got a 2nd place because of that.
Fuente De worked
Formigal - the beneficiary was Quintana, but it wasn't his tactic
Guariagerle needed a 30% climb
Solaison was won by an attack on the final climb
Risoul (which one?). Val Martello I missed

Anyway, these are exceptions. Last gasp efforts. In the meantime waiting for the final climb has a far superior success rate as a tactic.
Risoul stage to 2016 Giro. Chavez and Nibali attacked on Agnello that day and the GC group was down to 3 (Chavez, Nibali, Kruiswijk). Kruiswijk crashed on the descent trying to follow them, got injured, isolated, lost minutes and the maglia rosa. Nibali won the stage, Chavez took the pink, then Nibali attacked the next day as well and won the Giro.
Val Martello in 2014 Giro. Quintana, Hesjedal and Rolland going w-away on Stelvio stage and gaining minutes on the rest. Quintana wins the stage and race.
Also Contador attacked on Lanciano, not Guardiagrele. He was already far ahead of the ther GC riders when he started Guardiagrele. And Lanciano isn't a % 30 climb. The climb that was %30 was Guardiagrele but Contador attacked earlier on Lanciano.
Profile of Lanciano:
2000_altimetria-passo-lanciano.jpg


Though yeah, Contador attacked on Formigal and Quintana benefited. So not a very good example.

Also Fuglsang (the winner of the Solaison stage and the Dauphine) already dropped Porte before the final climb on Solaison stage.
 
Re: Re:

rghysens said:
TMP402 said:
Echoes makes a great point. Among the first things the new president could do is reduce the number of artificial top-down WT races to allow teams to race more traditional, local races which are loved and have a community behind them, instead of soulless Arab and Chinese excursions.

Although soulless, Qatar and Oman have produced some of the most entertaining racing the last few years. China not so, I'll give you that.

Agreed:
Qatar & Oman shall remain
Chinese Sh!TT out
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
They dominate two races - the Tour de France and Paris-Nice. They have only won two of the 39 monuments they have competed in.

The way the sport is constructed means there will always be stronger teams and weaker teams. It's been this way since Alcyon.

As for power meters, whether riders have them or not, it won't change the way teams ride. They ride that way because they have spent hundreds of hours training to rider that way. Waiting until the final climb is just sensible tactics. Sky's main tactic is having the best rider (they may not have in future)

Of course getting rid of power meters won't make every rider try to attack. Riding conservatively will still in most circumstances be the optimal strategy. However the more information a rider has access to, the more efficient riding conservatively becomes. Take the power numbers out of his sight and the voice of the DS out of his ear and riders have to work out a lot more for themselves and are much more likely to make misjudgements. Misjudgments about what pace they can hold and about what they have to do to control other riders attacks. Power meters and radios make everything more predictable and predictability in cycling is the enemy of entertainment. Force riders to think for themselves again.

As for Sky, they aren't the only culprits but the mega budget teams in general are a very mixed blessing when it comes to stability in the sport. There's an expanding budget gap between a handful of teams, mostly rich man's toy teams, and the rest. That chasm isn't something inherent to the sport, it's something that's getting worse. It has the effect of pricing "ordinary" small to medium sized sponsors out of the game. Commercial sponsors are faced with paying more to have a somewhat competitive team and still potentially getting less in the way of results and publicity because of super wealthy opponents.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Anyway, these are exceptions. Last gasp efforts. In the meantime waiting for the final climb has a far superior success rate as a tactic.
Only for the strongest guy in the race, and honestly, "someone won each of those races where they all waited for the final climb" is not a particularly telling fact.
 
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
Parker said:
Anyway, these are exceptions. Last gasp efforts. In the meantime waiting for the final climb has a far superior success rate as a tactic.
Only for the strongest guy in the race, and honestly, "someone won each of those races where they all waited for the final climb" is not a particularly telling fact.
I would argue that the other riders got the best result that they could.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
hrotha said:
Parker said:
Anyway, these are exceptions. Last gasp efforts. In the meantime waiting for the final climb has a far superior success rate as a tactic.
Only for the strongest guy in the race, and honestly, "someone won each of those races where they all waited for the final climb" is not a particularly telling fact.
I would argue that the other riders got the best result that they could.
There are more examples in smaller races for riders that were around the top 5-10 or so by strength but weren't content with following wheels and got some great stage wins and GC gains (e.g. S. Yates in Fayence and Leysin)
 
Re: Re:

Forever The Best said:
Parker said:
hrotha said:
Parker said:
Anyway, these are exceptions. Last gasp efforts. In the meantime waiting for the final climb has a far superior success rate as a tactic.
Only for the strongest guy in the race, and honestly, "someone won each of those races where they all waited for the final climb" is not a particularly telling fact.
I would argue that the other riders got the best result that they could.
There are more examples in smaller races for riders that were around the top 5-10 or so by strength but weren't content with following wheels and got some great stage wins and GC gains (e.g. S. Yates in Fayence and Leysin)
Sure. And none of it has anything to do with power meters - which was my original point. Power meters don't change tactics - the physics of the world remains the same with or with out them.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Forever The Best said:
Parker said:
hrotha said:
Parker said:
Anyway, these are exceptions. Last gasp efforts. In the meantime waiting for the final climb has a far superior success rate as a tactic.
Only for the strongest guy in the race, and honestly, "someone won each of those races where they all waited for the final climb" is not a particularly telling fact.
I would argue that the other riders got the best result that they could.
There are more examples in smaller races for riders that were around the top 5-10 or so by strength but weren't content with following wheels and got some great stage wins and GC gains (e.g. S. Yates in Fayence and Leysin)
Sure. And none of it has anything to do with power meters - which was my original point. Power meters don't change tactics - the physics of the world remains the same with or with out them.
Not really. Power meters make it easier for teams to control since they basically give helpers exact information how fast they have to ride while leaders who wait can perfectly time their effort and will never go into the red chasing attackers. There are hardly any cases in which a rider like Froome blows up because his power meter tells him how fast he can go and if it tells him he should drop he drops, but by using his power meter is still limits the damage. Things like Contador completely blowing up on Lagos de Covadonga in 2016 when he tried to follow Quintana's accelerations would never happen to a rider like Froome, however maybe they would if he must not use a power meter.

The thing is, power meters are rational. They more or less tell you how you can finish a stage as fast as possible. Long range attacks however aren't rational. For them to work you need a mixture of luck, the right composition of your chasing group and you have to risk blowing up and losing a lot of time. If you always have a rational voice in your head your are probably less likely to try something risky which might end up being stupid, but very often that's what makes cycling so great.
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
Not really. Power meters make it easier for teams to control since they basically give helpers exact information how fast they have to ride while leaders who wait can perfectly time their effort and will never go into the red chasing attackers. There are hardly any cases in which a rider like Froome blows up because his power meter tells him how fast he can go and if it tells him he should drop he drops, but by using his power meter is still limits the damage. Things like Contador completely blowing up on Lagos de Covadonga in 2016 when he tried to follow Quintana's accelerations would never happen to a rider like Froome, however maybe they would if he must not use a power meter.

The thing is, power meters are rational. They more or less tell you how you can finish a stage as fast as possible. Long range attacks however aren't rational. For them to work you need a mixture of luck, the right composition of your chasing group and you have to risk blowing up and losing a lot of time. If you always have a rational voice in your head your are probably less likely to try something risky which might end up being stupid, but very often that's what makes cycling so great.
Froome's not some amateur racer. He spends hours training to certain power levels. He knows exactly what level he's riding at. (Heart rate monitors are a better guide to effort anyway). Take the power meter off Froome and he'll still ride in the same way.

A power meter is like a Sat Nav. They are useful help to many, but an experience taxi driver is going to take the same route with or without one.
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Gigs_98 said:
Not really. Power meters make it easier for teams to control since they basically give helpers exact information how fast they have to ride while leaders who wait can perfectly time their effort and will never go into the red chasing attackers. There are hardly any cases in which a rider like Froome blows up because his power meter tells him how fast he can go and if it tells him he should drop he drops, but by using his power meter is still limits the damage. Things like Contador completely blowing up on Lagos de Covadonga in 2016 when he tried to follow Quintana's accelerations would never happen to a rider like Froome, however maybe they would if he must not use a power meter.

The thing is, power meters are rational. They more or less tell you how you can finish a stage as fast as possible. Long range attacks however aren't rational. For them to work you need a mixture of luck, the right composition of your chasing group and you have to risk blowing up and losing a lot of time. If you always have a rational voice in your head your are probably less likely to try something risky which might end up being stupid, but very often that's what makes cycling so great.
Froome's not some amateur racer. He spends hours training to certain power levels. He knows exactly what level he's riding at. (Heart rate monitors are a better guide to effort anyway). Take the power meter off Froome and he'll still ride in the same way.

A power meter is like a Sat Nav. They are useful help to many, but an experience taxi driver is going to take the same route with or without one.
So then it would be no issue to take them away, right? If they don't help in any way?
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
Gigs_98 said:
Not really. Power meters make it easier for teams to control since they basically give helpers exact information how fast they have to ride while leaders who wait can perfectly time their effort and will never go into the red chasing attackers. There are hardly any cases in which a rider like Froome blows up because his power meter tells him how fast he can go and if it tells him he should drop he drops, but by using his power meter is still limits the damage. Things like Contador completely blowing up on Lagos de Covadonga in 2016 when he tried to follow Quintana's accelerations would never happen to a rider like Froome, however maybe they would if he must not use a power meter.

The thing is, power meters are rational. They more or less tell you how you can finish a stage as fast as possible. Long range attacks however aren't rational. For them to work you need a mixture of luck, the right composition of your chasing group and you have to risk blowing up and losing a lot of time. If you always have a rational voice in your head your are probably less likely to try something risky which might end up being stupid, but very often that's what makes cycling so great.
Froome's not some amateur racer. He spends hours training to certain power levels. He knows exactly what level he's riding at. (Heart rate monitors are a better guide to effort anyway). Take the power meter off Froome and he'll still ride in the same way.

A power meter is like a Sat Nav. They are useful help to many, but an experience taxi driver is going to take the same route with or without one.
It's not like Froome is the only one who is training that much. Every pro has as much experience on the bike as Froome, so if Froome doesn't need one nobody does.
Anyway, I don't think riders would ride the same way with or without a power meter. as Flo already wrote, if that would be the case there wouldn't be a discussion in the first place. There are riders who are well known to try to stay with attackers for too long and therefore often blow up (most famous example is obviously Contador). They show perfectly that cyclists don't know exactly what their body is capable of. Otherwise words like "cracking" wouldn't even be used in this sport, since if everyone just rides his own pace you can't crack, you can only lose time slowly but surely.