So....cav outside time limit but race organisers let him stay in TDF

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not quite CLEAR how you come to that conclusion Dr M.
There seems to be a lot of concern about rule breaking here but it's obvious {I'd better not say clearly again} there is no rule. Directly one introduces "at the steward's discretion" the rule book is just a movable feast.Especially in a dodgy pastime like bike racing.
Just as a matter of interest , or perhaps not, I've just a raked out results from a similar stage, starting up the Galibier after only 7km and followed by a time trial from 1959. The difference is that the stage was 243km in 7hr 48 min. and it seems nobody finished outside the time limit! Even Jos Hoevenaers who punctured 4 times. Perhaps a certain amount of discretion was used but I can't find any reference to it. For those of you are concerned that eliminating riders today would only leave 60 or 70 riders which is not enough to race with the final stage was contested by 66 riders, one of whom retired, and was 331km in 9hr. 56min. Despite endless 6 and 7hr mountain stages the first 7 finishers on the last stage were all known sprinters and stage 11 in the Pyrenees was won by sprinter Andre Darrigade. So can we please stop feeling so sorry for today's sprinters.

No - "clearly", there is a rule about what the time limit is and there is also a rule about 20% of the field finishing outside it.

No idea what a race in 1959 has to do with modern racing and in particular when we don't know what the time limit was (if there even was one).

 

[Mambo95]

It woud be fairer if today's winner would have also received 45 points for his win (and Cavendish and Rojas would have lost 45 points). Ridiculous to award more points for sprint stages.

It's not ridiculous at all. The organisers want it to be a competition for sprinters and/or stage hunters, not yet another competition for the select few GC riders. In the Giro they have the same points for all the stages and there's next to no competition for it. The last two have been won by Contador and Evans, neither of whom gave the jersey a second thought.

 

[Aleajactaest]

We must be thankful that the people who actually make the rules and implement them have a clue about the sport.

Which would explain the stupidity about radios.... I'd contribute to a fund to buy them a clue.

 

[sartoris]

What does a time limit have to do with a race?

It's an artificial addition to the race. There's really no reason why someone finishing an hour outside the time limit shouldn't just be another hour down on the GC...

It's bewildering reading opinions like this in a forum of cycling fans.

Yeah, no time limit, so next day win will be for those who enjoyed their ride to the finish today. A minimum effort/time should be enforced! It's just fair play; simple as that.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Great avatar there Satroris.

Seriously, I don't have that much of a problem with re-instating them, I just think more time and points should be penalized than they are, that's all.

 

[Derrick]

My point Dr M. is that a rule that is open to such obvious manipulation by the riders and which also gives the adjudicators so much scope is very nearly no rule at all.
The reason for my quoting a 1959 race was that that particular stage was, in effect, the counterpart of today's given that it was a mountain stage in which the stars could fight for position prior to the time trial and then the run into Paris and that it started the climb of the Galibier after just 7km into the race so putting riders into difficulties early on. The difference I intended to illustrate was that not only did 80 or so riders not find it beyond their capabilities to finish within the limit {and although there definately would have been one I can't find out what it was} I was actually showing that not one rider, sprinter or otherwise, was eliminated. By citing this incident I was implying that both yesterday and today a lot of riders took a lot of liberties.

You will have,no doubt, read through this thread and will have noticed that there are those who seem to think sprinters are a delicate breed and must be preserved at all costs and that no race is a race without them. I was endeavouring to show that this view is ,in a word, Cr*p!

 

[hatcher]

The problem is that penalising time is not a punishment for anyone in the gruppetto, and penalising points is a punishment for a handful of riders at most. Those climbers who sit in the gruppetto simply to take time and have an easier day are the real villains, imo anyway, and they get away penalty free.

 

[Anonymous]

Getting away free?

Try climbing Telegraph, Tourmalet and Alpe d'Huez.

 

[SilentAssassin]

They should be out. These are professionals who should have trained enough to get within the time limit.

 

[Mambo95]

Maybe this forum should have a 'knowledge of cycling' limit. Anyone who falls below 10% of the average gets banned (ie those who 'know the rules' when they clearly don't and those who think the autobus was invented on Thursday)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My point Dr M. is that a rule that is open to such obvious manipulation by the riders and which also gives the adjudicators so much scope is very nearly no rule at all.

Two points here - firstly, the 20% rule is designed to allow riders finish in case they finish outside an arbitrary time limit.

As so many have been finishing (just) outside the time limit it shows that the limit needs to be revised.

The reason for my quoting a 1959 race was that that particular stage was, in effect, the counterpart of today's given that it was a mountain stage in which the stars could fight for position prior to the time trial and then the run into Paris and that it started the climb of the Galibier after just 7km into the race so putting riders into difficulties early on. The difference I intended to illustrate was that not only did 80 or so riders not find it beyond their capabilities to finish within the limit {and although there definately would have been one I can't find out what it was} I was actually showing that not one rider, sprinter or otherwise, was eliminated. By citing this incident I was implying that both yesterday and today a lot of riders took a lot of liberties.

Again, unless you have what (if any) time limit those riders were subject to, it has no relevance to modern racing.

You will have,no doubt, read through this thread and will have noticed that there are those who seem to think sprinters are a delicate breed and must be preserved at all costs and that no race is a race without them. I was endeavouring to show that this view is ,in a word, Cr*p!

There were far more than just sprinters in that group.

More importantly they finished just outside the time limit - 20 seconds - so they got their timing wrong, which is why the 20% rule is in place to allow some common sense.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They should be out. These are professionals who should have trained enough to get within the time limit.

They are paid to be cyclists, not mathematicians.

 

[hatcher]

Getting away free?

Try climbing Telegraph, Tourmalet and Alpe d'Huez.

"penalty free".

 

[Winterfold]

Maybe this forum should have a 'knowledge of cycling' limit. Anyone who falls below 10% of the average gets banned (ie those who 'know the rules' when they clearly don't and those who think the autobus was invented on Thursday)

Judged by this thread At least 20% of posters would fail to make the cut off - then where would we be?

 

[Derrick]

Dr M. you have made my point for me. "They got their timing wrong". These riders were not outside the limit because they were beyond their physical capabilities or had some exceptional mishap. They were outside the limit because their cynical approach came unstuck. I note that in an answer to another post you say that they ,that is those outside the time limit, are trained to be cyclists and not mathematicians but it is exactly because they tried to act like mathematicians, and here I quote you again, "they got their timing wrong", that they finished beyond the limit.

I am perfectly aware of the rules and their operation but I fear that the organization will have made a rod for its own back and unless some serious thought is given to this particular fiasco we can get used to seeing half the riders drifting in day after day, apparently unconcerned,safe in the knowledge that the organization will not have the courage to eliminate half the field.

Look at the faces of those at the front of the race today. Were they trying? Yes they were. Look at the faces of those outside the limit. See the difference?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Oy, those rules have been in place for a long time. The penalty points are a relatively recent addition to try to stop them just rolling in whenever, safe in the knowledge they won't be eliminated. They're new enough that Greipel complained about a conspiracy to get a Spaniard in the points jersey after being penalised on Sierra Nevada, only to be told that that was the rule all year, it's just that he was the first big name to fall foul of it.

So the rules are being changed to try and stop it. In the Vuelta and Giro it's a more effective punishment given that the points lost are the same as their normal sprint victories, whereas at the Tour the weighting of points to stages has a detrimental effect on the ability of the punishment to deter.

 

[Mambo95]

Dr M. you have made my point for me. "They got their timing wrong". These riders were not outside the limit because they were beyond their physical capabilities or had some exceptional mishap. They were outside the limit because their cynical approach came unstuck. I note that in an answer to another post you say that they ,that is those outside the time limit, are trained to be cyclists and not mathematicians but it is exactly because they tried to act like mathematicians, and here I quote you again, "they got their timing wrong", that they finished beyond the limit.

I am perfectly aware of the rules and their operation but I fear that the organization will have made a rod for its own back and unless some serious thought is given to this particular fiasco we can get used to seeing half the riders drifting in day after day, apparently unconcerned,safe in the knowledge that the organization will not have the courage to eliminate half the field.

Look at the faces of those at the front of the race today. Were they trying? Yes they were. Look at the faces of those outside the limit. See the difference?

Your problem is you only see them in the last 50-100m and you're judging them on that. You haven't seen what they've been through for the past 100-200km. By the time they get into the last 500-1000m they know whether they're going to make it or not, the autobus leader (someone like Eisel or Hushovd) will get the nod from the race director and they'll ease up a little. That's why, to you, they don't look like they're 'trying'. They're just happy the day is over by that point.

If they come in a few seconds or a couple of minutes down, that's no big deal. If they have taken it 'easy' and come in 15-20 minutes late then they probably would be cut. There's an understanding between riders and race officials. It's existed for at least two decades.

The time limit isn't there for sporting reasons. It's so people don't have to hang around too long at the finish. It's not there with the intention of getting rid of riders. Sport is entertainment. Getting rid of half the field is stupid.

If some riders are taking it a little easy, then good for them - that's sensible. If some other rider is unnecessarily straining every sinew to finish five minutes faster, then more fool him. His DS will be having a word. Tomorrow in the TT, there will also be many riders going 2-3 minutes slower than they are actually capable of.

There's specific 'acceptable' time either. For example, on a 200km mountain stage ridden at between 32-33kph, then the cut off is 9%. But the difference in finishing times between 32.0 kph and 32.99 kph is eleven minutes. What happens up front makes a big difference - but it doesn't make the autobus riders more or less capable. This year favourites have been attacking 60-90km from home - we haven't seen that for over a decade.

And finally, what should the time limit be? How good is good enough? What is 9% this year was 10% last year. On last year's rules they would have made the limit. With over 100 riders missing the time limit on at least one of two stages, the race directors will probably consider the reduction of the limit a mistake.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr M. you have made my point for me. "They got their timing wrong". These riders were not outside the limit because they were beyond their physical capabilities or had some exceptional mishap. They were outside the limit because their cynical approach came unstuck. I note that in an answer to another post you say that they ,that is those outside the time limit, are trained to be cyclists and not mathematicians but it is exactly because they tried to act like mathematicians, and here I quote you again, "they got their timing wrong", that they finished beyond the limit.

....And because they got their timing wrong is why they all stayed together to ensure they had +20% to stay within the rules.

You seem to think these riders are riding individually - if they did there would only be 50 finishers of the race.

I am perfectly aware of the rules and their operation but I fear that the organization will have made a rod for its own back and unless some serious thought is given to this particular fiasco we can get used to seeing half the riders drifting in day after day, apparently unconcerned,safe in the knowledge that the organization will not have the courage to eliminate half the field.

No - quite frankly you are not.

They missed the cut by 20 seconds - if they came in at 20 minutes, with ice creams - then you may have a point.

Look at the faces of those at the front of the race today. Were they trying? Yes they were. Look at the faces of those outside the limit. See the difference?

See the faces of the guys at the front of a sprint? Are they trying? Yes.
See the faces of the guys coming at the back of a bunch sprint - see the difference?

By that logic a rule should be in place demanding everyone fights for the win in every race.

 

[asdfgh101]

Fun fact 1:If the stage had been won in a time 11 seconds quicker then the grupetto would have made the time cut by 1m25s.

Fun fact 2: Under the new stricter limits quite a few previous buses would have arrived too late (stage 17 from 2009 TDF for example).

Fun fact 3: When stages are raced from the start (rather than being partially nuetralised) more than half of the peleton finishes outside the limit under the new co-efficients.

The main problem with the co-efficients is that they don't take into account the difficulty of an individual stage. More descending favours the 'autobus' whereas longer and steeper climbs obviously don't.

An example:

90km downhill would represent 50% of a 180km stage and represents a part of the course in which those chasing will be able to minimise and in some cases negate their losses.

Let's say that the descents are taken at an average speed of 52km/h by both the leaders and the grupetto. The other half of the couse (20km false flats and 70k hors cat climbing) is taken at an average speed of 21km/h by the winning rider. This means that the average race speed is 36.5km/h and a co-efficient of 13%to be added to the winning time of 4h55m53s results in a 38m28s cut-off.

Another 180km stage has 40km of descents (ridden at 52km/h by all), 50km of flats (40km/h by all), 10km of false flats (30km/h by leaders) and 80km of hors cat climbing (20km/h by winner). A winning time of 6h21m9s gives an average speed of 28.335km/h and a 6% co-efficient means that the cut-off is 22m52s.

I wonder which stage will see riders outside of the time cut?

Obviously the length and severity as well as the placement of the climbs will play a major factor. So what i suggest is that each mountain stage be given it's own individual difficulty rating for grand tours. The average speed will then be taken to two decimal places and in conjunction with the difficulty rating will decide the co-efficient for the stage.

I would aim for the time restrictions to be slightly more lenient than those imposed in the last two stages but all riders outside of the limit would be eliminated unless this would number more than 80% of the field (no penalties).

 

[Mambo95]

Nice stats asdfgh101.

Here's another interesting one.
For a 200km mountain stage, if the winner rides it in 6:03:45 the average speed is 32.99kph. The cut off (for 32-33kph) is 9% - 32 mins 44

However, if the winner rides 13 seconds faster, then the average speed is 33.01kph, so the cut off (for 33-34kph) is 10% - 36 mins 35

So the winner goes 13 seconds faster and the cut off increases by nearly 4 minutes.

 

[Hawkwood]

Let's be clear about this, the time limit rules have more to do with TV scheduling than anything else. French TV wants to be able wrap things up in time for their early evening scheduling.* They don't want old-fashioned Tour stages where nothing happens for the first few hours, and riders drift in over an hour or more. However where this comes unstuck is when riders important to various competitions, and hence to the entertainment value of the race, miss the time limit so there are fail-safe mechanisms to keep them in. The critics of Cavendish fail to understand that the Tour organisation needs him to be in Paris on Sunday. Cavendish generates a lot of column inches in France whether posters here like it or not.

* The rules of tennis were changed for the same reason.

 

[Derrick]

Right , let's answer a few questions here. It has been claimed, quite correctly, that that points deduction is a recent way of trying to combat what we've seen over the last day or so. Well it hasn't worked in this instance and my suggestion was that the organization will have to give it some serious thought. It has obviously been recognized as a problem otherwise race committees wouldn't have found it necessary to juggle with the rules.
Secondly, "they were only 20 odd seconds outside the limit". Precisely! And that limit was already a 25 minutes and 9 secs. extension over the winners time.
Dr M. reckons that I think riders were acting as individuals. This is a complete reversal of what I claimed. The whole basis of my argument was that riders had colluded to exploit the rules. Had they acted as individuals we would have seen twos and threes crossing the line.{Can individuals cross the line in twos and threes?But you'll get my point}
One contributor suggests that I want every rider to fight for the win in every race. Too ****** true. Wouldn't it be great. Only a day or two ago a poster said he liked Gilbert because he acted as though he wanted to win every time he pinned on a number "like old time racers". If only !

However it's Hawkwood who hits the nail on the head. It's all about television coverage and logistics and entertainment and money. Sport doesn't really come into it. It's "professional" after all and the words professional and sport don't always sit comfortably together. Hawkwood is right again when he tells us that the rules of tennis have been changed but not only tennis but what about football. We don't have replays any longer we have penalty shoot outs.Every body hates them but it's the television schedulers who call the shots. Even snooker used to be first to 77 frames but that's too long for today's attention span and tele programmers.
It's become apparent that organizers have tried to toughen up tours of late. There was a time when tour riders were idolized because their exploits were seen as superhuman but now it seems that even tour organizers have realized the "cycling as entertainment " has gone too far and a degree of man against the elements must be re-introduced.
The best thing for me about this tour has been Thor Hushovd,on being interviewed after his stage victory,saying "to win---wearing this jersey---on my own."
Off on holiday now chaps . No wasting time on computors for a week or so. Enjoy your tour.

 

[SirLes]

Off on holiday now chaps . No wasting time on computors for a week or so. Enjoy your tour.

Ignoring for a moment the whole"toughening up the tour recently bit" nonsense and the logical inconsistency of decrying the need for entertainment rather than true sport while wanting a time limit which was introduced for entertainment reasons rather than the true sport of letting the riders finish as and when they can which was originally the case.
(Oops I didn't ignore it did I)

What I really want to know is, if you're not able to waste time on a computer because you're on holiday, what job do you do that allows you to waste time on a computer when you're meant to be working?
I'm on holiday now which is why I can post. Normally I can't. Not having a go, just jealous

 

[icefire]

Interesting:
http://www.as.com/ciclismo/articulo/repescas-solo-habrian-llegado-56/20110725dasdaicic_5/Tes

Only 56 would have finished in Paris. The first 26 riders in Champs Elisées' sprint should have never been there.
Cadel Evans would have been the ITT winner. He would have also won the points jersey.

The green jersey is not a sprinters jersey, is a points jersey. It becomes a sprinters jersey if mountain stages are worth less points than flat ones. It also adds when the penalty for missing the time limit is less in a mountain stage than in flat one.

Stage races are about endurance and recovery and getting late to the finish is distorting the competition not only for stage or jersey wins, but also keeping helper riders in the race when they shouldn't be kept.

The current system makes the time limit unpredictable for riders in the bus as it depends on the speed of the stage winner and it varies in discrete steps of a few minutes, so there's room for improvement there. But riders missing the limit should be sent home.

What if the sprint in Paris is won by Taaramae instead of Cav, Farrar or Greipel? I don't care. Sprinters unable to climb over a bridge should go back to the track where they belong or try at 1-day races and the Tour of Qatar. Once we get rid of this kind of rider in stage races nobody will miss them in Paris because they will generate as many column inches as the guys of Saur-Sojasun. If we also get rid of their trains we'll have more unpredictable races. It will all be for the better.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Since such a big group was outside the time limit, I think they should let them stay in, but just take all points from all those riders for the point and KOM classifications. It is not fair that someone who shouldnt be in the tour anymore wins a sideclassification.

Do the rules allow for points deductions? I don't think so.