Le Tour de France 2011 - the big one is coming

[Mambo95]

And almost everyone in the mountains, let's not forget that

No, he didn't demolish everyone in the mountains. He limited his time loses. But, he usually had a lot of time to play with.

(In his 5 Tour wins, Miguel never won a non-TT stage - which may make him unique amongst multi-Tour winners)

 

[El Pistolero]

No, he didn't demolish everyone in the mountains. He limited his time loses. But, he usually had a lot of time to play with.

(In his 5 Tour wins, Miguel never won a non-TT stage - which may make him unique amongst multi-Tour winners)

Merckx post 69 also wasn't the best climber mind you.

 

[rghysens]

No, he didn't demolish everyone in the mountains. He limited his time loses. But, he usually had a lot of time to play with.

(In his 5 Tour wins, Miguel never won a non-TT stage - which may make him unique amongst multi-Tour winners)

Maybe you should do some math and see how much time big mig lost in all the mountain stages of 1 tour combined. The time he lost in the first mountain stage to, let's say, Chiapucci, he made up in later mountain stages.

 

[Magnus]

You might have just picked a fight you can't win.

The GC race only became close after Rasmussen's unfortunate departure.
There were 122 kms of TT (including the prologue). IMO that's way too many.

Until the the aubisque stage it was in no way set in stone that Rasmussen had enough of a lead to secure the victory.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

If this Giro's anything to go by, Bert will totally dust Andy and everyone else.

I don't know where this idea that TdF 2009 AC was below par and Giro 2010 AC is awesome. The TdF 2009 version put minutes into everybody bar Andy, whenever he felt like it. The Giro 2010 version is putting minutes into everybody whenever he feels like it, because Andy isn't there. Come somebody please explain the difference to me?

 

[jobiwan]

Until the the aubisque stage it was in no way set in stone that Rasmussen had enough of a lead to secure the victory.

The first post you quoted from me was in response to someone telling Libertine he/she had no clue of the Tour and its history, even though Libertine has some of the most informed and thoughtful posts in the forum, as just reading this thread will show. The one who commented about Libertine was about to fight a losing battle.

As for the 2007 Tour, the fact that Rasmussen had enough to secure a victory and had won it in the mountains is what would have kept it from being decided in the TT. Of course with his exit, it was very much up for grabs in the TT.

 

[taiwan]

Sooooo...

What's the 'big one'?

 

[ansimi]

I don't know where this idea that TdF 2009 AC was below par and Giro 2010 AC is awesome. The TdF 2009 version put minutes into everybody bar Andy, whenever he felt like it. The Giro 2010 version is putting minutes into everybody whenever he feels like it, because Andy isn't there. Come somebody please explain the difference to me?

I think you might be a year behind? If you mean 2010 Tour AC vs. 2011 Giro AC then they look completely different. We're seeing him now the way he hasn't looked for 2 years or so. He's looks strong and confident and he's having fun on the bike. At last year's Tour, he looked really stressed and afraid of losing. It's not so much a difference vs. the competition.

There's no telling whether he can hold his current physical condition or mental attitude through to the end of the Tour though.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

People like you just have no clue of the Tour and It's history

The side of history we remember most fondly is the side that we want to.

My favourites from the past of cycling were climbers. My favourites from the present are climbers.

You may like the time triallers, and that's fine. But cycling isn't the same as it was in Indurain's heyday. Things are different now. Too much money staked on the Tour, too much sponsor value to have the risks. If we put out the routes that we did back in the past, then we'd have rider complaints and protests, and we'd have somebody winning the TT by a number of minutes and never having to lift a finger after that, cos the teams are stronger and better organised than they used to be, and yes, race radios make it easier to control.

I know you're a Tony Martin fan and would like to justify a situation that would enable him to win the Tour, and can find historical justification for that. But guess what? I'm an Igor Antón fan and would like to justify a situation that would enable him to win the Tour too.

 

[c&cfan]

I don't know where this idea that TdF 2009 AC was below par and Giro 2010 AC is awesome. The TdF 2009 version put minutes into everybody bar Andy, whenever he felt like it. The Giro 2010 version is putting minutes into everybody whenever he feels like it, because Andy isn't there. Come somebody please explain the difference to me?

sorry,

are you drunk?read your post carefully please.

in the last tour, 2010, andy was on the podium because of cancellara. yes, cancellara. cobbled stage, and the neutralised one. do the math. andy had no bike skills (crash), no shifting skills (chaingate), no TT skills and a lot of hypocrisy skills (how can he blame contador when he didn't wait for him in stage 3? then conti still waited in another stage.. not only that, andy attacked him before the "chaingate") to deserve a place in the podium. how close was menchov in the end?

contador had problems in the first MTF, in the last TT (losing lots of time to menchov is proof), says that he wasn't feeling good etc, and you see no difference to the 2011 alberto?

right know he is racing with motivation again! he is free to fight like he wants\likes!

the only problem for this year is:

look to what he already did. he has nothing to prove this season. but andy has. contador has no pressure at all to win this. a top 5 is already great.

but we feel that he wants it more than ever.

 

[Mellow Velo]

What's the 'big one'?

ACF's boycrush for Cadel. Stands out a mile.

Seriously, how can folks find the time to discuss one GT, when another one is embarking on it's second queen stage?
Must be a lot of bored, 3WFs lurking.

 

[c&cfan]

The side of history we remember most fondly is the side that we want to.

My favourites from the past of cycling were climbers. My favourites from the present are climbers.

You may like the time triallers, and that's fine. But cycling isn't the same as it was in Indurain's heyday. Things are different now. Too much money staked on the Tour, too much sponsor value to have the risks. If we put out the routes that we did back in the past, then we'd have rider complaints and protests, and we'd have somebody winning the TT by a number of minutes and never having to lift a finger after that, cos the teams are stronger and better organised than they used to be, and yes, race radios make it easier to control.

I know you're a Tony Martin fan and would like to justify a situation that would enable him to win the Tour, and can find historical justification for that. But guess what? I'm an Igor Antón fan and would like to justify a situation that would enable him to win the Tour too.

with all due respect, I believe that you are biased and that you don't like cycling as a whole. it's as hard to be the best sprinter as it is as hard to the the best climber. the tour is the best race to promote cycling, and sprints are part of it, and they are the most amazing\dangerous one, for obvious reasons. not only that, sprinting stages, if flat enough, without wind, with some strong teams controlling the race, are good to talk about cycling's history, season, cyclists, gossip etc, show some great pics of france, promoting the country etc.

same with the TTs, the hardest discipline of road racing, made for the hardest man. there is a difference between GT riders and climbers and, what you are saying, makes no sense.

just like cav as to fight to deserve his wins (based on you, this means going up hills, mountains, the sea, the sky etc. like if the training he does to be the best isn't enough (and this is you being hypocrite)), anton also has to deserve his GT wins (work more to be better in the TTs, descending, climbing, bike handling etc), but it seems like you can't have a fair discussion in the subject.

 

[Skip Madness]

I think it's a fantastic route. For too long, the climbs of the Tourmalet, Portet d'Aspet, Izoard, Galibier and Alpe d'Huez (edit: and the Aubisque!) have gone unheralded and under-used, so it's great that these finally get the attention they deserve. And thank god for only 42.5km of ITT - for the last few years the Tour has been far too ITT-heavy. It's also nice to see so many stages will come down to the last 10km and nothing more - it means I don't have to bother watching the rest of the stage!!!!!!

 

[Bavarianrider]

The side of history we remember most fondly is the side that we want to.

My favourites from the past of cycling were climbers. My favourites from the present are climbers.

You may like the time triallers, and that's fine. But cycling isn't the same as it was in Indurain's heyday. Things are different now. Too much money staked on the Tour, too much sponsor value to have the risks. If we put out the routes that we did back in the past, then we'd have rider complaints and protests, and we'd have somebody winning the TT by a number of minutes and never having to lift a finger after that, cos the teams are stronger and better organised than they used to be, and yes, race radios make it easier to control.

I know you're a Tony Martin fan and would like to justify a situation that would enable him to win the Tour, and can find historical justification for that. But guess what? I'm an Igor Antón fan and would like to justify a situation that would enable him to win the Tour too.

When i talk of the history of the Tour i don't mean the 90es

Igor Anton can win the Tour the France even if there are long time trials, he just needs to be strong enough to attack in the mountains early. The Tour should be about the best allrounder, not just about the best climbers.
Again, nothing to do with Tony.

 

[Magnus]

The first post you quoted from me was in response to someone telling Libertine he/she had no clue of the Tour and its history, even though Libertine has some of the most informed and thoughtful posts in the forum, as just reading this thread will show. The one who commented about Libertine was about to fight a losing battle.

As for the 2007 Tour, the fact that Rasmussen had enough to secure a victory and had won it in the mountains is what would have kept it from being decided in the TT. Of course with his exit, it was very much up for grabs in the TT.

Sorry about the first quote. Don't know how it ended up there... But on that subject I don't understand Libertines wanting better MTF's than Galibier (although they should do it from north, but then they wouldn't have Izoard from south)

About 2007:
You were arguing that lots of tt km leads to boring races. 2007 tdf was awesome (ok being danish I'm completely biased on this one, but still).
As I remember the general consensus before stage 16 was that the overall title was still up for grabs, but that after the stage where Rasmussen gained time on Contador the overall was secured. So the GC was close before the Theo de Roij incident.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

At last year's Tour, he looked really stressed and afraid of losing. It's not so much a difference vs. the competition.

Of course he did. He had Andy Schleck to contend with. If Andy hadn't been there, he'd have looked exactly the same as now.

 

[Mambo95]

Maybe you should do some math and see how much time big mig lost in all the mountain stages of 1 tour combined. The time he lost in the first mountain stage to, let's say, Chiapucci, he made up in later mountain stages.

Go on then, show me the maths. Or better still, show me a stage where Indurain finished ahead of all his GC challengers.

I'm not trying to criticise Mig. He rode the best way to win. But over five years it changed cycling (as did EPO obviously).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

with all due respect, I believe that you are biased and that you don't like cycling as a whole. it's as hard to be the best sprinter as it is as hard to the the best climber. the tour is the best race to promote cycling, and sprints are part of it, and they are the most amazing\dangerous one, for obvious reasons. not only that, sprinting stages, if flat enough, without wind, with some strong teams controlling the race, are good to talk about cycling's history, season, cyclists, gossip etc, show some great pics of france, promoting the country etc.

I get that - but would it hurt the péloton to let the break get enough time to create just the tiniest bit of suspense, rather than just hold them at 2-3 minutes through the whole stage? The sprints aren't the problem, it's the stage leading up to them. A good sprint can be very exciting. I just think we should include enough obstacles to make the sprinters earn the right to duke it out for the stage win. The Giro stage Ventoso won is a perfect example. Was it a hard stage? Not really. Was it selective? Not especially. But it had the sprint trains off their guards and meant that the sprinters had to earn their position at the end of the race.

same with the TTs, the hardest discipline of road racing, made for the hardest man. there is a difference between GT riders and climbers and, what you are saying, makes no sense.

I'm not saying that climbers and GT riders are one and the same. I'm saying we need to strike a balance. With the current balance in the Tour, using a lot of easy climbs and overused ones that everybody knows like the back of their hand, putting in multiple long TTs could turn it into a wheelsucking festival. The climbs that were selective in the days of yore may not be now, and so the organisers have to respond to that. Their response has been cutting the TT mileage. My response would be to restore that TT mileage but make longer and tougher mountain stages to balance that. Or at least use a less predictable set of climbs in order to keep the heads of state off guard.

just like cav as to fight to deserve his wins (based on you, this means going up hills, mountains, the sea, the sky etc. like if the training he does to be the best isn't enough (and this is you being hypocrite)), anton also has to deserve his GT wins (work more to be better in the TTs, descending, climbing, bike handling etc), but it seems like you can't have a fair discussion in the subject.

There shouldn't be any stages that are designed with the knowledge that there is no possibility for any finish other than a bunch sprint. Many finishes can be 'likely' bunch sprints, but I hate the 'guaranteed' ones. An exposed area that could provide wind, or just a small incline 15-20km from the finish, is all I ask. Enough that the trains can't be forming themselves from 80km out and there can be a platform for late attacks or lone raiders to break up trains.

When i talk of the history of the Tour i don't mean the 90es

Igor Anton can win the Tour the France even if there are long time trials, he just needs to be strong enough to attack in the mountains early. The Tour should be about the best allrounder, not just about the best climbers.
Again, nothing to do with Tony.

I didn't mean the 90s either. I hark back to the days of José Manuel Fuente.

 

[gregrowlerson]

I think it's a fantastic route. For too long, the climbs of the Tourmalet, Portet d'Aspet, Izoard, Galibier and Alpe d'Huez (edit: and the Aubisque!) have gone unheralded and under-used, so it's great that these finally get the attention they deserve. And thank god for only 42.5km of ITT - for the last few years the Tour has been far too ITT-heavy. It's also nice to see so many stages will come down to the last 10km and nothing more - it means I don't have to bother watching the rest of the stage!!!!!!

HAHAHA!!!

Great Post.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm an Igor Antón fan and would like to justify a situation that would enable him to win the Tour too.

But part of the reason we love Anton so much is that he doesnt actually do the Tour

I think it's a fantastic route. For too long, the climbs of the Tourmalet, Portet d'Aspet, Izoard, Galibier and Alpe d'Huez (edit: and the Aubisque!) have gone unheralded and under-used, so it's great that these finally get the attention they deserve. And thank god for only 42.5km of ITT - for the last few years the Tour has been far too ITT-heavy. It's also nice to see so many stages will come down to the last 10km and nothing more - it means I don't have to bother watching the rest of the stage!!!!!!

Genius.

 

[gregrowlerson]

The side of history we remember most fondly is the side that we want to.

My favourites from the past of cycling were climbers. My favourites from the present are climbers.

You may like the time triallers, and that's fine. But cycling isn't the same as it was in Indurain's heyday. Things are different now. Too much money staked on the Tour, too much sponsor value to have the risks. If we put out the routes that we did back in the past, then we'd have rider complaints and protests, and we'd have somebody winning the TT by a number of minutes and never having to lift a finger after that, cos the teams are stronger and better organised than they used to be, and yes, race radios make it easier to control.

I know you're a Tony Martin fan and would like to justify a situation that would enable him to win the Tour, and can find historical justification for that. But guess what? I'm an Igor Antón fan and would like to justify a situation that would enable him to win the Tour too.

I am an Andreas Kloden fan, and yes I would like to see more TTkm's.

But what us TT fans are really asking for is just more variety from year to year in the amount of TT's. I don't want to see 100-150 km's of it every year, but some years should be more for the pure climbers, then others a little more for the pure TT's. This years TDF is the third in a row where there have been very few TTkm's, and this is even worse considering that the Giro and Vuelta have also not had too many TT's.

It's not like Tony Martin (on previous climbing form) would win this years TDF even if it had 150kms of ITT either. He'd still lose mountains of minutes to the Schlecks in the 4 very tough MTF's. What some of us are saying is that sometimes the parcours should give a good TT the chance to podium (and perhaps even win the race) as long as he is in the top 10 climbers in the race and not necessarily the best couple. Everyone has a go at Wiggins in '09, but he didn't even TT that well in that race - he actually climbed pretty well. He was well up on Verbier, and in the Queen stage he finished 7th I think. So it's not like he was only the 20th best climber in the race and finished 4th because of the TT's.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Of course he did. He had Andy Schleck to contend with. If Andy hadn't been there, he'd have looked exactly the same as now.

I hate to break this to you, but Contador had Andy to contend with in 2009 too and he gave the Schlecklet a good whipping.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I think it's a fantastic route. For too long, the climbs of the Tourmalet, Portet d'Aspet, Izoard, Galibier and Alpe d'Huez (edit: and the Aubisque!) have gone unheralded and under-used, so it's great that these finally get the attention they deserve. And thank god for only 42.5km of ITT - for the last few years the Tour has been far too ITT-heavy. It's also nice to see so many stages will come down to the last 10km and nothing more - it means I don't have to bother watching the rest of the stage!!!!!!

Home. Run.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I am an Andreas Kloden fan, and yes I would like to see more TTkm's.

But what us TT fans are really asking for is just more variety from year to year in the amount of TT's. I don't want to see 100-150 km's of it every year, but some years should be more for the pure climbers, then others a little more for the pure TT's. This years TDF is the third in a row where there have been very few TTkm's, and this is even worse considering that the Giro and Vuelta have also not had too many TT's.

It's not like Tony Martin (on previous climbing form) would win this years TDF even if it had 150kms of ITT either. He'd still lose mountains of minutes to the Schlecks in the 4 very tough MTF's. What some of us are saying is that sometimes the parcours should give a good TT the chance to podium (and perhaps even win the race) as long as he is in the top 10 climbers in the race and not necessarily the best couple. Everyone has a go at Wiggins in '09, but he didn't even TT that well in that race - he actually climbed pretty well. He was well up on Verbier, and in the Queen stage he finished 7th I think. So it's not like he was only the 20th best climber in the race and finished 4th because of the TT's.

Absolutely agree. It's called balance. Nobody holds back in a tt which is good. You ride as hard as you can and the clock says if did well or bad. No hiding. You are 100% exposed.

 

[craig1985]

Stage 5 could be good if the wind is coming off the coast and cause some splits.

I personally would have turned left at Guingamp to Lannion, and then turned right to follow the coast to Plouha and kept the same route until we got to Cap Fréhel. Sure a sprinter will win (or in '08 when the peloton fell asleep on the stage to Nantes and guys like RR and Menchov lost time), but if the wind plays havoc, then there will be echelons, and it will be interesting to see which GC guy loses a packet of time (to quote David Harmon). But 70km of potential cross wind should be interesting as it is.