Hammer series

[Armchair Cyclist]

If Quickstep finished in 52:38, and they started 39" after Trek, does that mean they actually completed the course in 51'59, the same as Sky? (and 31" slower than Sunweb)

 

[wwabbit]

PCS has the day stage classification, with QS at same time as Sky 31 seconds behind Sunweb, but I'm not sure if it's official:
http://www.procyclingstats.com/race/Hammer_Sportzone_Limburg_2017_Stage_3

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Need to introduce a rule that once a team is passed in the TTT, the team passed, must sit up for 3 seconds - This means the stronger team will usually ride away.

But how do you prevent the team that is closing, perhaps only very gradually, from getting some drafting advantage?

And can you really ask a team to stop pedalling if they are caught in the last 2km?

My post is referring to when a team is passed - Of course the team doesn't stop pedalling as the Commissars used common sense in directing the passed team to slow down - I am certain that once Orica got past teams with a 3 second gap then there was no way back for those teams.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

So without the 5 minute time penalties, LottoNL was the fastest.. imagine that

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re:

so, the stage winner - team first over the line, or fastest time on course from teams 1-16?
Cause somebody who started late but finished in peloton would've had fastest time on course.

/thehog mode

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Re:

Naast de eindzege gaat ook de dagzege naar Sky. Zij werkten het 44,7 kilometer lange parcours af in 51 minuten en 59 seconden. Sunweb eindigt als tweede in de daguitslag, één seconde achter Sky. Quick-Step reed in de B-groep naar een tijd van 52 minuten en 38 seconden.

Google translate:

In addition to the final victory, the day goes to Sky. They completed the 44.7 kilometer long course in 51 minutes and 59 seconds. Sunweb finishes second in the dayout, one second behind Sky. Quick-Step drove in the B group to a time of 52 minutes and 38 seconds.

How can they publish a classification for the day that is based on time gaps established on the previous two days?

Either credit Sunweb for having done today's stage fastest (31" faster than Sky), or have the honesty to say that there is no stage classification for day 3.

That's ridiculous. Reminds me of the XC skiing I see on Eurosport sometimes, where athletes start a second event with time gaps established in an earlier event, and the one to cross the line first wins the 2nd event. It makes no sense to me, surely the winner is the one who got through the course the fastest.

I admit thats something quite strange in XC skiing and Biathlon, but then again these events don't also have a gc for both events together because the "gc" is simply the result of the 2nd race. In this case however the races earlier are important for three things. For example the result of the sprint race, is important for the sprint race itself, the outcome of the pursuit race and the final gc.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

Naast de eindzege gaat ook de dagzege naar Sky. Zij werkten het 44,7 kilometer lange parcours af in 51 minuten en 59 seconden. Sunweb eindigt als tweede in de daguitslag, één seconde achter Sky. Quick-Step reed in de B-groep naar een tijd van 52 minuten en 38 seconden.

Google translate:

In addition to the final victory, the day goes to Sky. They completed the 44.7 kilometer long course in 51 minutes and 59 seconds. Sunweb finishes second in the dayout, one second behind Sky. Quick-Step drove in the B group to a time of 52 minutes and 38 seconds.

How can they publish a classification for the day that is based on time gaps established on the previous two days?

Either credit Sunweb for having done today's stage fastest (31" faster than Sky), or have the honesty to say that there is no stage classification for day 3.

That's ridiculous. Reminds me of the XC skiing I see on Eurosport sometimes, where athletes start a second event with time gaps established in an earlier event, and the one to cross the line first wins the 2nd event. It makes no sense to me, surely the winner is the one who got through the course the fastest.

What's ridiculous? In today's scenario, Sky win the overall, Sunweb win the stage.
But Hammer had (at least in the publicity I had seen) said nothing about there being a day winner for Sunday until they suddenly (late last night?) decided that there ought to be some purpose in the B race.

Sorry, I meant to say it's ridiculous that not the fastest team wins the stage but rather the team that finishes first. That team automatically wins the GC, so the team that is fastest should win the stage

 

[Kazistuta]

Maybe not thought through, but:

Couldn't all straight parts of the circuit be divided in two (traffic cones fx) and every team only be allowed to pass another team when in the other lane? Then all corners would be "free to choose" and teams could switch lane if they'd please. It should be doable making two lanes on a closed circuit...?

 

[RedheadDane]

They'd need significantly wider roads for that.

 

[RattaKuningas]

Re:

Maybe not thought through, but:

Couldn't all straight parts of the circuit be divided in two (traffic cones fx) and every team only be allowed to pass another team when in the other lane? Then all corners would be "free to choose" and teams could switch lane if they'd please. It should be doable making two lanes on a closed circuit...?

Maybe not even all straights but some of the longest straights. Should be enough to create a gap and leave behind team without slipstream if they are slow.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Naast de eindzege gaat ook de dagzege naar Sky. Zij werkten het 44,7 kilometer lange parcours af in 51 minuten en 59 seconden. Sunweb eindigt als tweede in de daguitslag, één seconde achter Sky. Quick-Step reed in de B-groep naar een tijd van 52 minuten en 38 seconden.

Google translate:

In addition to the final victory, the day goes to Sky. They completed the 44.7 kilometer long course in 51 minutes and 59 seconds. Sunweb finishes second in the dayout, one second behind Sky. Quick-Step drove in the B group to a time of 52 minutes and 38 seconds.

How can they publish a classification for the day that is based on time gaps established on the previous two days?

Either credit Sunweb for having done today's stage fastest (31" faster than Sky), or have the honesty to say that there is no stage classification for day 3.

That's ridiculous. Reminds me of the XC skiing I see on Eurosport sometimes, where athletes start a second event with time gaps established in an earlier event, and the one to cross the line first wins the 2nd event. It makes no sense to me, surely the winner is the one who got through the course the fastest.

Weirdly, in the XC stage races, you DO get that kind of 'double winner' situation, for example the Alpe Cermis and Toblach-Cortina pursuit stages in the Tour de Ski - everybody sets off on GC time, so the GC is settled by the time at the finish, but the fastest 'isolated pursuit time', i.e. the one that set the fastest time on that stage, is the one that is credited with the victory - however unlike other stages, no time bonuses are given for those victories and, if there are time bonuses, they go to the top 3 finishers on the stage, which will inevitably be the top 3 on the GC (this is often used when a pursuit is near the start of the stage race, to give the distance racers a greater deficit against the more sprint-oriented athletes, especially as the sprinters will likely have to expend more energy in the sprints, which are in knockout format with some ridiculously generous time bonuses. I guess I should be glad that format wasn't part of the Hammer Series, as I'm sure quick repeated five minute bursts of a shoulder-to-shoulder NASCAR-on-bikes lottery would appeal to Velon judging from this).

The weird one is the biathlon pursuit, because the sprint race (which sets the start times for the pursuit) also pays World Cup points, World and Olympic championships medals. If the sprint+pursuit was one format, effectively qualifying and main race like in motorsport, then that would make more sense.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

Naast de eindzege gaat ook de dagzege naar Sky. Zij werkten het 44,7 kilometer lange parcours af in 51 minuten en 59 seconden. Sunweb eindigt als tweede in de daguitslag, één seconde achter Sky. Quick-Step reed in de B-groep naar een tijd van 52 minuten en 38 seconden.

Google translate:

In addition to the final victory, the day goes to Sky. They completed the 44.7 kilometer long course in 51 minutes and 59 seconds. Sunweb finishes second in the dayout, one second behind Sky. Quick-Step drove in the B group to a time of 52 minutes and 38 seconds.

How can they publish a classification for the day that is based on time gaps established on the previous two days?

Either credit Sunweb for having done today's stage fastest (31" faster than Sky), or have the honesty to say that there is no stage classification for day 3.

That's ridiculous. Reminds me of the XC skiing I see on Eurosport sometimes, where athletes start a second event with time gaps established in an earlier event, and the one to cross the line first wins the 2nd event. It makes no sense to me, surely the winner is the one who got through the course the fastest.

Weirdly, in the XC stage races, you DO get that kind of 'double winner' situation, for example the Alpe Cermis and Toblach-Cortina pursuit stages in the Tour de Ski - everybody sets off on GC time, so the GC is settled by the time at the finish, but the fastest 'isolated pursuit time', i.e. the one that set the fastest time on that stage, is the one that is credited with the victory - however unlike other stages, no time bonuses are given for those victories and, if there are time bonuses, they go to the top 3 finishers on the stage, which will inevitably be the top 3 on the GC (this is often used when a pursuit is near the start of the stage race, to give the distance racers a greater deficit against the more sprint-oriented athletes, especially as the sprinters will likely have to expend more energy in the sprints, which are in knockout format with some ridiculously generous time bonuses. I guess I should be glad that format wasn't part of the Hammer Series, as I'm sure quick repeated five minute bursts of a shoulder-to-shoulder NASCAR-on-bikes lottery would appeal to Velon judging from this).

The weird one is the biathlon pursuit, because the sprint race (which sets the start times for the pursuit) also pays World Cup points, World and Olympic championships medals. If the sprint+pursuit was one format, effectively qualifying and main race like in motorsport, then that would make more sense.

Up until 2000/2001, XC had two separate races, 10, 15km pursuit. The 10 classic race was counted as its own race, meaning that those that finished on the podium would be awarded medals and prize money, but the 15km handicap pursuit, one would also get medals and prize money if one finished in the top 3, regardless of time in the skate portion (the second leg).

Now fast forward 15+ years and it's much more confusing. Ustiugov, as you well know, dominated the Tour de Ski. In the handicap pursuit race in Oberstdorf, he started first, and finished first, extending his lead on Sundby, the man that finished second, but neither of them had were in the top 3 in terms of time for that 15km handicap pursuit, nevertheless they were ranked 1 and 2, as that's how they finished, so they got prize money and points as a normal 1 and 2 would, though the points are maximum 50 in stage races, unlike the 100 in regular WC races.

 

[Jagartrott]

Re:

So without the 5 minute time penalties, LottoNL was the fastest.. imagine that

Riding in the peloton for over half of the time probably helped though.

 

[kenk09]

Yes, it's no surprise that the team that had most teams to draft off had the fastest time.

Fastest teams started in this order: 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 1st - with Nippo being the only team out of order.

 

[Forever The Best]

Re: Re:

Naast de eindzege gaat ook de dagzege naar Sky. Zij werkten het 44,7 kilometer lange parcours af in 51 minuten en 59 seconden. Sunweb eindigt als tweede in de daguitslag, één seconde achter Sky. Quick-Step reed in de B-groep naar een tijd van 52 minuten en 38 seconden.

Google translate:

In addition to the final victory, the day goes to Sky. They completed the 44.7 kilometer long course in 51 minutes and 59 seconds. Sunweb finishes second in the dayout, one second behind Sky. Quick-Step drove in the B group to a time of 52 minutes and 38 seconds.

How can they publish a classification for the day that is based on time gaps established on the previous two days?

Either credit Sunweb for having done today's stage fastest (31" faster than Sky), or have the honesty to say that there is no stage classification for day 3.

That's ridiculous. Reminds me of the XC skiing I see on Eurosport sometimes, where athletes start a second event with time gaps established in an earlier event, and the one to cross the line first wins the 2nd event. It makes no sense to me, surely the winner is the one who got through the course the fastest.

Weirdly, in the XC stage races, you DO get that kind of 'double winner' situation, for example the Alpe Cermis and Toblach-Cortina pursuit stages in the Tour de Ski - everybody sets off on GC time, so the GC is settled by the time at the finish, but the fastest 'isolated pursuit time', i.e. the one that set the fastest time on that stage, is the one that is credited with the victory - however unlike other stages, no time bonuses are given for those victories and, if there are time bonuses, they go to the top 3 finishers on the stage, which will inevitably be the top 3 on the GC (this is often used when a pursuit is near the start of the stage race, to give the distance racers a greater deficit against the more sprint-oriented athletes, especially as the sprinters will likely have to expend more energy in the sprints, which are in knockout format with some ridiculously generous time bonuses. I guess I should be glad that format wasn't part of the Hammer Series, as I'm sure quick repeated five minute bursts of a shoulder-to-shoulder NASCAR-on-bikes lottery would appeal to Velon judging from this).

The weird one is the biathlon pursuit, because the sprint race (which sets the start times for the pursuit) also pays World Cup points, World and Olympic championships medals. If the sprint+pursuit was one format, effectively qualifying and main race like in motorsport, then that would make more sense.

From what I remember in that 35 km pursuit on Tour de Ski, the one who crossed the line first at that stage (i.e. the leader of the race at the end of that stage) is also counted as the winner of that stage.

 

[deValtos]

Probably the fastest TTT Nippo have ever done. :lol:

 

[Insider]

I feel they should ditch TT-bikes and make riders use normal road bikes and allow drafting.

 

[StryderHells]

Re:

I feel they should ditch TT-bikes and make riders use normal road bikes and allow drafting.

Why?

 

[swuzzlebubble]

What I'd do is the TTT first and allocate points based on placings. Then the other two events with the total points accumulating.

 

[RedheadDane]

I think the point is that they want the winning team to be the team that crosses the line first in the TTT.
The team that crosses the line first in the "finale" heat, that is.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Sure, although what they really want is just a format the casual observer can understand. Obviously having first over the line winning does that. But if more than say three teams were finishing together it could get sketchy and hard to follow anyway.
At least with one of the other events as the final you get a slow burn that people can follow
Basically like the revised omnium at the Olympics (and also sailing events)

 

[valentius borealis]

Re:

I think the point is that they want the winning team to be the team that crosses the line first in the TTT.
The team that crosses the line first in the "finale" heat, that is.

Another option would be to hold the TTT as a relay.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

Sure, although what they really want is just a format the casual observer can understand.

I for one was highly amused by the bizarrely byzantine rules, considering all the noise about how cycling needed dumbed down rules that any casual watcher would immediately understand.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

I think the point is that they want the winning team to be the team that crosses the line first in the TTT.
The team that crosses the line first in the "finale" heat, that is.

Another option would be to hold the TTT as a relay.

I like this idea

 

[Breh]

Re: Re:

Sure, although what they really want is just a format the casual observer can understand.

I for one was highly amused by the bizarrely byzantine rules, considering all the noise about how cycling needed dumbed down rules that any casual watcher would immediately understand.

???

When it comes to rules, isn't road cycling one of the easiest sports to understand?