Teams & Riders Nairo Quintana discussion thread

[dacooley]

Re: Re:

Quintana isn't overrated. He just isn't the mythical climber like was contador or pantani in their best years and some fans (nairo's fanboys) like to put him in the same league of pantani and contador and he isn't even close to their climbing ability. That's the true.

that's quite harsh. pantani and contador didn't always manage to meet fans' expectations either. no need to conflate mythical and orginary with likeable and unlikable.

Pantani was in the league of his own like Contador never was.
Quintana still has enough time to reach their levels. Pantani's little harder, off course.
And don't forget Froome's role and try to imagine Pantani in this era. These are all the elements influencing an assessment.

Pantani's les deux alpes 1998 stage was really stratosphetic, still it's not a reason for me to draw the line between god of climbing Pantani, semi-God Contador and just a very good climber Quintana. The real issue is we are living in the hype era and a significant part of most emotionally invested fans are bound in honor to tell 'hey, a favorite will easily destroy the entire field in the mountains' before any big event. notwithstanding, if it doesn't happen, they are instantly willing to blast him by calling massively overrated, that's what I strongly disagree with. yes, Quintana couldn't win the Giro, but there was nothing shameful in losing the race to the brilliantly gifted all-rounder from Netherlands. Pantani and Contador wouldn't necessarily have beaten Dimoulin too,though, we are prone to not questioning this kind of things. it's wrong and unfair to riders like Quintana imo

A pre ban contador would have smashed this giro. He would lose 2 minutes in the time trials (worst case scenario).

With the Tour in mind 10 times out of 10? thanks, not that I expected a different response.

 

[Escarabajo]

Well Pantani's palmares is not that great if you ask me. It is the way that he won. And not for long. When he tried to do it in 2000 with Armstrong he retired. And after that came failure after failure. Now he set records in some of the mountains from 95 to 98 where we know what was going on the side. But after constraints were put in place he failed. So good for him that he set some records in the most damned era that we know now. Different times. No comparison should be drawn with him. Really.

And to be honest not many people compared him to Quintana. Only one or two of the forum members. One of them has been banned. So I really don't understand why people keep bringing him into the discussion.

Besides Quintana has chosen to go for palmares. And like Rolland said, with Sky's train in todays times, makes for a very boring race where everybody has to follow wheels. A Quintana without going for GC could have been seen in 2013 Tour at the beginning when he was playing for Valverde. Dauphine's 2012, and other 1 week races when he was going on the attack. It is different tactics. I am sure one day we will see him doing this again when he has nothing to lose already.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

Quintana isn't overrated. He just isn't the mythical climber like was contador or pantani in their best years and some fans (nairo's fanboys) like to put him in the same league of pantani and contador and he isn't even close to their climbing ability. That's the true.

that's quite harsh. pantani and contador didn't always manage to meet fans' expectations either. no need to conflate mythical and orginary with likeable and unlikable.

Pantani was in the league of his own like Contador never was.
Quintana still has enough time to reach their levels. Pantani's little harder, off course.
And don't forget Froome's role and try to imagine Pantani in this era. These are all the elements influencing an assessment.

Pantani's les deux alpes 1998 stage was really stratosphetic, still it's not a reason for me to draw the line between god of climbing Pantani, semi-God Contador and just a very good climber Quintana. The real issue is we are living in the hype era and a significant part of most emotionally invested fans are bound in honor to tell 'hey, a favorite will easily destroy the entire field in the mountains' before any big event. notwithstanding, if it doesn't happen, they are instantly willing to blast him by calling massively overrated, that's what I strongly disagree with. yes, Quintana couldn't win the Giro, but there was nothing shameful in losing the race to the brilliantly gifted all-rounder from Netherlands. Pantani and Contador wouldn't necessarily have beaten Dimoulin too,though, we are prone to not questioning this kind of things. it's wrong and unfair to riders like Quintana imo

A pre ban contador would have smashed this giro. He would lose 2 minutes in the time trials (worst case scenario).

Of course he would have smashed it. Well that's why we call it pre-ban.

 

[Lexman]

So how much time will Nairo lose in the first stage of the TdF.? he hasn't ridden a race so must lack some rhythm and then get some flat ITT immediately....

 

[Hugo Koblet]

Re:

So how much time will Nairo lose in the first stage of the TdF.? he hasn't ridden a race so must lack some rhythm and then get some flat ITT immediately....

10-15 seconds to Froome, probably a bit more to Porte.

 

[portugal11]

Re: Re:

So how much time will Nairo lose in the first stage of the TdF.? he hasn't ridden a race so must lack some rhythm and then get some flat ITT immediately....

10-15 seconds to Froome, probably a bit more to Porte.

I think he will lose 45 seconds to froome

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

So how much time will Nairo lose in the first stage of the TdF.? he hasn't ridden a race so must lack some rhythm and then get some flat ITT immediately....

With riders coming from the Giro is a toss of a coin TBH. We know he is not one of the best so at least he will lose significant time to specialists.

Now a prologue or short TT is a different effort compared to a longer TT. So maybe it benefits him to avoid losing too much time. The last stage of the Giro was ~2.87 seconds per kilometer. So that outs him at 40 seconds. If he loses less than that it will be good.

 

[Lexman]

Re: Re:

So how much time will Nairo lose in the first stage of the TdF.? he hasn't ridden a race so must lack some rhythm and then get some flat ITT immediately....

With riders coming from the Giro is a toss of a coin TBH. We know he is not one of the best so at least he will lose significant time to specialists.

Now a prologue or short TT is a different effort compared to a longer TT. So maybe it benefits him to avoid losing too much time. The last stage of the Giro was ~2.87 seconds per kilometer. So that outs him at 40 seconds. If he loses less than that it will be good.

thanks to all your replies. those 2.87 sec per km was compared to van Emden/Dumoulin I suppose? Would he lose the same amount to Porte and Froome ?

If he limits his loss to around 20-25 seconds that would be ok I suppose.

 

[Valv.Piti]

I think it wil be pretty even to 2015, but I think Froome will do a little better.

 

[capuldemetal]

http://www.velonews.com/2017/06/news/movistar-coach-quintana-best-yet_44

nairo has an strava account? if yes,it could be really intreresting..

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

So how much time will Nairo lose in the first stage of the TdF.? he hasn't ridden a race so must lack some rhythm and then get some flat ITT immediately....

With riders coming from the Giro is a toss of a coin TBH. We know he is not one of the best so at least he will lose significant time to specialists.

Now a prologue or short TT is a different effort compared to a longer TT. So maybe it benefits him to avoid losing too much time. The last stage of the Giro was ~2.87 seconds per kilometer. So that outs him at 40 seconds. If he loses less than that it will be good.

Aren't most GC riders on the startlist pretty poor at prologues? Because they generally have so little anaerobic power. I guess Valverde would do the best of them, but he's no threat to Quintana (or is he? :twisted: ). But I think most of the others will be quite far down on the stage top 10.

 

[portugal11]

Re:

I think it wil be pretty even to 2015, but I think Froome will do a little better.

I don't beleive... in 2015 the wind changed and benefited quintana who started the time trial very early. Froome didn't practise (less than previous years) his time trial in 2015 because the tour only had 14 km of time trial. More important, quintana was in the shape of his life and I don't think he will be as strong as 2015

 

[capuldemetal]

http://www.accuweather.com/ro/de/dusseldorf/40212/daily-weather-forecast/170372?day=5 weather for this saturday.

 

[portugal11]

Re: Re:

So how much time will Nairo lose in the first stage of the TdF.? he hasn't ridden a race so must lack some rhythm and then get some flat ITT immediately....

With riders coming from the Giro is a toss of a coin TBH. We know he is not one of the best so at least he will lose significant time to specialists.

Now a prologue or short TT is a different effort compared to a longer TT. So maybe it benefits him to avoid losing too much time. The last stage of the Giro was ~2.87 seconds per kilometer. So that outs him at 40 seconds. If he loses less than that it will be good.

Aren't most GC riders on the startlist pretty poor at prologues? Because they generally have so little anaerobic power. I guess Valverde would do the best of them, but he's no threat to Quintana (or is he? :twisted: ). But I think most of the others will be quite far down on the stage top 10.

By your logic, purito would be the best gt rider in this time trial

 

[Valv.Piti]

Are you out to troll or have a meaningfull conversation, Portugal? Thats obviously not what he is saying and you know that. Valverde is actually a pretty good time trialist, Purito was horrible. So, on shorter distances, he may have an advantage, thats all he is saying.

 

[portugal11]

Re:

Are you out to troll or have a meaningfull conversation, Portugal? Thats obviously not what he is saying and you know that. Valverde is actually a pretty good time trialist, Purito was horrible. So, on shorter distances, he may have an advantage, thats all he is saying.

Sorry valv, but i'm trolling the troll...

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

Are you out to troll or have a meaningfull conversation, Portugal? Thats obviously not what he is saying and you know that. Valverde is actually a pretty good time trialist, Purito was horrible. So, on shorter distances, he may have an advantage, thats all he is saying.

Sorry valv, but i'm trolling the troll...

I cannot see how what DFA was writing was troll, but okay...

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Are you out to troll or have a meaningfull conversation, Portugal? Thats obviously not what he is saying and you know that. Valverde is actually a pretty good time trialist, Purito was horrible. So, on shorter distances, he may have an advantage, thats all he is saying.

Exactly. Purito is an irrelevant comparison.

On the other hand, Valverde's been excellent on short, flattish TTs so far this year. Nibali would be another GC rider who is pretty good at this kind of distance, and Thomas/Pinot if you count them as GC contenders for this race. The other GC riders though are aerobic monsters, and anaerobically quite poor. The shorter the distance, the less it suits them, so I doubt there will end up being very big gaps between any of them.

I'd back Sagan, GVA and maybe even Kittel to finish ahead of Froome if they all went for it 100% on this course.

 

[Netserk]

Sagan should really give it his all, as he could then perhaps take yellow on stage 3 or 4.

 

[Son of Amsterhammer]

Re:

Sagan should really give it his all, as he could then perhaps take yellow on stage 3 or 4.

In the same Vein, maybe GVA has his eyes on yellow for stage 3?

 

[Valv.Piti]

Porte is pretty good anaerobically, no? On a few shortish efforts this year he has been amazing, Down Under (yes I know) and Leysin in Romandie

 

[Red Rick]

Porte is definitely great anaerobically. Fast twich fibers is what he lacks mostly.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Porte is pretty good anaerobically, no? On a few shortish efforts this year he has been amazing, Down Under (yes I know) and Leysin in Romandie

I think he's quite poor anaerobically, but good at power at vo2 max (which is still largely aerobic). So 5-10 minute steady efforts (e.g. climbs) he's great - 30sec to 1 minute efforts (anaerobic) not so good. I think doing well in these flat prologues or short TTs is more about accelerating really hard out of corners and getting up to high speed as quickly as possible - which requires the fast twitch fibres.

This course isn't overly technical though, but still, it's the accelerations and cornering where most time will be won or lost I think.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Porte is definitely great anaerobically. Fast twich fibers is what he lacks mostly.

That doesn't make sense. Fast twitch fibers use anaerobic respiration, slow twitch fibers use aerobic respiration. If he lacks fast twitch fibers, then he's not going to be very good anaerobically (which he isn't).

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

Porte is definitely great anaerobically. Fast twich fibers is what he lacks mostly.

That doesn't make sense. Fast twitch fibers use anaerobic respiration, slow twitch fibers use aerobic respiration. If he lacks fast twitch fibers, then he's not going to be very good anaerobically (which he isn't).

Fine.

He lacks IIb fibers, he'll prolly have lla fibers, though the majority's gonna be type l muscle fibers.

He's gonna have some buffer capacity.