Official thread: Should descents be a factor in GC/ are Tour's descents too dangerous

[laura.weislo]

Both Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador are concerned about the descent of the Pra Martino in Wednesday's stage. After Andy Schleck's poor descent today lost him 1:06 on Contador we offer up this topic for discussion.

 

[Cimber]

Yes descents is a part of cycling and there are great riders who excell in exactly that discipline.

As long as you dont have such descent the first week of the race (like in the Giro where the tragic event took place this year) its fine to have them in the race. But ofcourse finishing descent shouldnt be way to dangerous. The one today was fine, the one tomorrow might be borderline, but tomorrow's descent worked will in the Giro some years back, so as long as its not raining it should be ok.

 

[cineteq]

They can choose to take it easy, right?

 

[jens_attacks]

the answer is no.
everything is dangerous in life anyway.

 

[H2OUUP2]

Winning the tour de france now, or any grand tour, isn't just about being the best climber, or Time Trialist, or Descender. It's about being the best cyclist in the world. If you can't descend, or at least be decent at it, then you probably won't win. It's not a one day classic, it's a 21 stage tour that throws everything possible at a cyclist. As long as it's withing reason, it's the way I think it should be.

 

[Parrulo]

the answer to the poll is no.

and descents should be a key factor in all GT's. imo that was one of the weak points of this giro. it lacked 1 or 2 big descent finishes with the line just after the descent ended.

 

[luckyboy]

No, it's a part of cycling like climbing, TTing etc. Andy is pre-empting his TDF loss.

 

[Dead Star]

As long as it's not something insane like the Crostis, I don't see the problem at all. Seems to me like AS moaning and whinging about a major weakness of his and probably hoping Spartacus is able to neutralise it like last year

 

[Jeanne]

No. And +1 to everything that has been said here before.

 

[Duartista]

the answer to the poll is no.

and descents should be a key factor in all GT's. imo that was one of the weak points of this giro. it lacked 1 or 2 big descent finishes with the line just after the descent ended.

This.

Also, good to hear Pescheux is letting his inner Zomegnan come to the fore:

Pescheux reckoned there are "certainly some spins" in the descent. "But shall we cancel the Poggio in Milan-San Remo? Shall we draw the Tour's route on a motorway between Paris and Marseille? If so, those who complain could lose the race because of an echelon…"

 

[BYOP88]

As long as it's not something insane like the Crostis, I don't see the problem at all. Seems to me like AS moaning and whinging about a major weakness of his and probably hoping Spartacus is able to neutralise it like last year

Hopefully Spartacus will be nowhere near the action. If the Schlecks or anyone else think the descents are too dangerous, then I think it's time for them to leave the kitchen and go and do something else for a living.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I understand the emotive case in the light of the Wouter Weylandt tragedy, but we must be realistic here. Descents are a part of cycling. Pretty much always have been. In the light of a death, a particularly risky descent (though the worst parts were on the false flat anyway) was removed from the Giro, to mixed reaction. Given the events of the race it was probably the right decision. But we can't stay trapped in fear forever. Tom Simpson died on a climb, did we stop mountaintop finishes?

If we can't go downhill, we simply cannot have multiple climb stages. If we can't descend, then some riders are robbed of their biggest asset, and non-climbers are robbed of their biggest weapon in the battle against the time cut.

 

[amp300]

Schleck and AC need to put their big boy pants on. If Cadel was *****ing or any of the three from the winning break complained then I might give this more credence. Agree with what previous poster's have said.

 

[kanari]

Finally the forum seems to agree on something!

 

[Arnout]

I understand the emotive case in the light of the Wouter Weylandt tragedy, but we must be realistic here. Descents are a part of cycling. Pretty much always have been. In the light of a death, a particularly risky descent (though the worst parts were on the false flat anyway) was removed from the Giro, to mixed reaction. Given the events of the race it was probably the right decision. But we can't stay trapped in fear forever. Tom Simpson died on a climb, did we stop mountaintop finishes?

If we can't go downhill, we simply cannot have multiple climb stages. If we can't descend, then some riders are robbed of their biggest asset, and non-climbers are robbed of their biggest weapon in the battle against the time cut.

Descents are not risky, the riders make them risky. Good descenders never fall.

Andy Schleck is whining. What goes up must come down.

 

[clydesdale]

Of course it should count (I selected Yes because I'm stupid and misread the poll question). Cyclists can descend as precisely as fast as they deem safe; they aren't being chased down the mountain by a freakin' boulder. Descending is my favorite thing to both watch and do in cycling.

I used to be a fan of AS years ago but now he seems like one of those dillholes I'd play basketball against who would constantly pipe up with "doesn't count, doesn't count" the minute something doesn't his way.

 

[red_flanders]

I haven't seen or ridden the descent referenced in the thread, but so far, no. Particularly today. So I vote no.

We'll see come the descent referenced. Lots of whining so far, that's for sure.

 

[Anonymous]

Nope, descending is as much a skill as climbing or sprinting is.

And Andy said on Monday that todays descent was "deadly".. what did we have, one tiny crash on the descent. That was it. So frankly I take anything the Schlecks have to say with a pinch of salt.

If your time trialling is week, you practise, if your climbing is week you train, if your descending is week for year upon year you moan about it.

I appreciate the schlecks might be a little sensitive about it following recent events, but frankly Andy was dropped on the climb anyway. He should be grateful there was 11km of descending, another 11km of climbing and he probably would have lost a lot more than he did.

 

[rides like a girl]

Bike racing can be dangerous. If we stopped doing the most dangerous parts, I guess no more racing on narrow roads with people and road furniture on the roads. No more high speed racing on cobblestones. No more high speed racing, no more bunch sprints and no more using time trial bikes. Those TT bikes are hard to handle for some riders on corners. I guess that means we would not have racing on rainy days either--too dangerous.

It can't be just about the climbing! If a rider doesn't have the ability to descend at high speeds, back off.

Watching the descenders fly down a mountain making up time they lost to AC on the climb was great during the Giro. Added more strategy and excitement. It makes a climber who isnt a good descender have to strategize another factor. I enjoyed Thor's descent, that probably won him the stage earlier last week.

 

[Anonymous]

what gets me is they only ever complain about these stages the day before, they know the route for months, why does it take this long for them to say something.

 

[red_flanders]

He should be grateful there was 11km of descending, another 11km of climbing and he probably would have lost a lot more than he did.

By my count he was 21 seconds behind at the top of the climb today. I think we can say the descent hurt him.

Which is fine, it's a bike race, not simply some kind of oxygen processing freak show.

 

[Bobby700c]

I didn't see anything in the article to suggest Contador's concerned about the descent. The quote was "If you are not ready you can lose the Tour there" - he was obviously talking about Schleck (choose either one)!

 

[Michielveedeebee]

Accidentally voted yes :/ But by all means, no they are not too dangerous

 

[Anonymous]

By my count he was 21 seconds behind at the top of the climb today. I think we can say the descent hurt him.

Which is fine, it's a bike race, not simply some kind of oxygen processing freak show.

but that was 21 seconds in what, 3km? and he lost a further 40 seconds over 11km of the descent.

On that basis his losses on the climbs were worse than on the descent. Another 11km of climbing and he could theoretically lost a further 1m20 seconds on top, so 1m40 all together.

 

[BYOP88]

what gets me is they only ever complain about these stages the day before, they know the route for months, why does it take this long for them to say something.

+1

I've always found that strange too.