Tour 2018 stage 20: St P-S-Nivelle - Espelette 31km ITT

[Brullnux]

Re:

I can list pure climbers on one had that won Tour going back to 70s. Tour de France is not a climbers race whatever the number of TT km.

Is that maybe - potentially - because every tour in this event years had 50-100km of TT? There is a correlation between km of TT and likelihood a climber wins, or comes close - I don't know how you can suggest otherwise. It just so happens that recently the best TTer is also the best climber.

 

[movingtarget]

The only three pure climbers to win in the past 40 odd years have been Van Impe, Pantani and Sastre. Winners have mostly been good at both disciplines and some of the climbers even further back could still do a decent TT. Not sure how good Bahamontes and Gaul were at the TT. I think Gaul was not too bad.

 

[topcat]

Egan Bernal is a pure climber. Watch how many tours he wins.

 

[Big Doopie]

Re:

I can list pure climbers on one had that won Tour going back to 70s. Tour de France is not a climbers race whatever the number of TT km.

and it shouldn't be. GTs should be won by all-rounders. the profile of the vuelta in recent years has been ridiculous.

the problem is that fans (understandably) want to see the crazy scintillating attacks in the mountains and therefore they get disappointed when they don't see it.

however, traditionally, GTs are as much a test of (natural, we hope) recovery than anything else.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Re:

As I see it it's a combination of all of the factors you mentioned:
Thomas went out too hard and paid the price on the hill at the end. When he slipped behind Dumoulin and Portal told him he took it easy and safe. He knew that he won't be able to finish ahead of Tom so why pushing? Overall win was in the pocket anyway.

This

 

[Zoophonic]

Whatever Dumo Froome were great today. Giro still in their legs. Roglic disappointing performance

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

And is your theory about pure climbers having bad days true? Or just a theory?

true. not a theory.

of course there are a few exceptions (e.g. Van Impe in 1976, but he could TT pretty well).

traditionally pure climbers do not have the body type to deal with the succession of wear and tear that a three week GT does. Pure climbers like Fuente, Herrera, Bardet, Martin etc. can often be counted on to have more bad days at some point. but also the reason that they are often not as attacking and sharp in the mountain stages as we expect, because they get worn down by riding big bracket on the flat much more than the power guys.

hinault, merckx, etc... used to take advantage of exactly that and wore them down.

this is not my theory, this is well, well known in pro peleton.

Does this explain why Dumoulin in 2017 at the Giro had as many bad days as Quintana? Or why Froome had more bad days in 2015?

 

[dacooley]

some fans seem to be quite obsessed about little pocket-size pantani-like climber destroying all-rounders uphill and conquering the tour with blistering mountain solos. not gonna happen, ladies and genlemen. not in the tour, at least. the sport a long ago got completely calculated where it's all down to pure watts.

 

[Big Doopie]

Re:

Egan Bernal is a pure climber. Watch how many tours he wins.

i agree with this. he is really, really something. he is definitely an outlier. very exciting to watch.

however, he is also a much better natural TTer than quintana or bardet or landa. he is more in the Van Impe mode.

being in a strong team with GTs with few ITT kms will also help him, no doubt.

if they ever returned to 100+ kms of ITT, I doubt he would ever win it tho.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

Some other facts, apart from Thomas and Froome no GC contender within 1 minute.
Most lose 1:30 or more.

And this was a tough rolling time trial. Like I said, if there's a hilly TT in the Tour, or 2, no climber is going to be even close to Sky or Dumoulin

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

The only three pure climbers to win in the past 40 odd years have been Van Impe, Pantani and Sastre. Winners have mostly been good at both disciplines and some of the climbers even further back could still do a decent TT. Not sure how good Bahamontes and Gaul were at the TT. I think Gaul was not too bad.

Yeah because the gains made in TTs were bigger than the gains made in the climbs, unless your name is Pantani.

 

[Big Doopie]

Re:

some fans seem to be quite obsessed about little pocket-size pantani-like climber destroying all-rounders uphill and conquering the tour with blistering mountain solos. not gonna happen, ladies and genlemen. not in the tour, at least. the sport a long ago got completely calculated where it's all down to pure watts.

bingo.

bernal could be an exciting outlier tho, i hope.

tho he already tts better than all pure climbers.

 

[perico]

Re: Re:

The total demolition of the climber oriented tour challengers in a Tour de France designed for climbers has been completed. Fun times.

get a grip.

if you knew the traditional history of GT winners you would know that this is the mold.

thomazeau (french cycling expert on cycling podcast) even specifically pointed out that dumo is the prototype of TDF winner.

it is actually traditionally/historically rare for a pure climber to do much more than Bardet did (top ten) with more bad days likely than the real GC riders. pure climbers do not digest the succession of stages as well. especially those first nine flat stages, it wears out their climbing legs much more than the power riders. that is simply a fact.

they should put some mountain stages in the first weekend (as they did in 1977!) and yet an all-rounder (Thevenet) still won. LOL!!

I mean, it's totally true though? They've constructed Tours with little to no TT km and yet freaking Geraint Thomas wins, followed by three other TTers. The reason big guys won it in the past was because they had 80km of time trials. And is your theory about pure climbers having bad days true? Or just a theory? Quintana when he was good had very few bad days, less than Froome. Nibali at his best didn't have very many. Dumoulin has one or two per GT. Contador didn't have many either, sometimes none at all.

In the past the pure climbers would have to claw back around 7 minutes after the long TTT and ITTs in the first weeks. At least in the 1980s, the climbers would almost always have net gains in the combined mtn. stages (1984 was the one exception, and even then Fignon didn’t put a massive amount of time into the climbers on the mtn stages).

 

[Big Doopie]

Re: Re:

The only three pure climbers to win in the past 40 odd years have been Van Impe, Pantani and Sastre. Winners have mostly been good at both disciplines and some of the climbers even further back could still do a decent TT. Not sure how good Bahamontes and Gaul were at the TT. I think Gaul was not too bad.

Yeah because the gains made in TTs were bigger than the gains made in the climbs, unless your name is Pantani.

TTers have also adjusted to the new course profiles -- look how skinny they are compared to before.

easier for dumo to lose a couple of kgs, climb better and not lose too much in ITT, than a pure climber trying to put on weight to gain more power.

 

[staubsauger]

Re: Re:

The only three pure climbers to win in the past 40 odd years have been Van Impe, Pantani and Sastre. Winners have mostly been good at both disciplines and some of the climbers even further back could still do a decent TT. Not sure how good Bahamontes and Gaul were at the TT. I think Gaul was not too bad.

Yeah because the gains made in TTs were bigger than the gains made in the climbs, unless your name is Pantani.

Pantani completely murdered Zülle & Ullrich in the Alps though! Not gonna happen ever again under normal circumstances. Additionally he rode quite decent against the clock in 98!

 

[Red Rick]

If a small man is a sick enough climber, he'll be a passable TT'er as well.

I don't think the problem is that people want small climbers to win, the problem is people want them to compete. That delicate balance produces the best racing. And when the slightly bulkier climbers actually dominate the climbs, that never happens.

I don't see this as a monumental thing. No pure climber was in exeptional form for 3 weeks. And I wouldn't want them to get it easily either. Quintana, on his one good day in the Tour, gave an indication on the kind of damage an outstanding climber can do.

 

[Moviefan1203]

Super happy to see G essentially clinch the race. Seems like such a nice guy.

 

[Big Doopie]

Re:

Quintana, on his one good day in the Tour, gave an indication on the kind of damage an outstanding climber can do.

how much damage was that?

40 seconds?

the guy who lost out the most that day was arguably bardet, a pure (rail thin) climber on a bad day...

 

[topcat]

Re: Re:

The only three pure climbers to win in the past 40 odd years have been Van Impe, Pantani and Sastre. Winners have mostly been good at both disciplines and some of the climbers even further back could still do a decent TT. Not sure how good Bahamontes and Gaul were at the TT. I think Gaul was not too bad.

Yeah because the gains made in TTs were bigger than the gains made in the climbs, unless your name is Pantani.

TTers have also adjusted to the new course profiles -- look how skinny they are compared to before.

easier for dumo to lose a couple of kgs, climb better and not lose too much in ITT, than a pure climber trying to put on weight to gain more power.

Exactly. And how do they do that?

 

[oldcrank]

Re:

Lol! Thomas gifted the stage to Froome only to find out the time keeping has been trolling.

Of all people, a poster with the handle of Hugo Koblet shouldn't be
surprised by deceitful ITT time-keeping at the Tour de France!!

 

[dacooley]

Re:

Quintana, on his one good day in the Tour, gave an indication on the kind of damage an outstanding climber can do.

Yes, but he would no way in hell have been able to deliver 2-3 similar performances in a single tour which pretty much indispensable for winning, given current state of things amongst the tour contenders.

 

[skippo12]

Re: Re:

The only three pure climbers to win in the past 40 odd years have been Van Impe, Pantani and Sastre. Winners have mostly been good at both disciplines and some of the climbers even further back could still do a decent TT. Not sure how good Bahamontes and Gaul were at the TT. I think Gaul was not too bad.

Yeah because the gains made in TTs were bigger than the gains made in the climbs, unless your name is Pantani.

Pantani completely murdered Zülle & Ullrich in the Alps though! Not gonna happen ever again under normal circumstances. Additionally he rode quite decent against the clock in 98!

Pantani was down 3 minutes in the GC in 98 and only won because Ullrich hit the wall on one stage (losing 9 minutes).

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

The only three pure climbers to win in the past 40 odd years have been Van Impe, Pantani and Sastre. Winners have mostly been good at both disciplines and some of the climbers even further back could still do a decent TT. Not sure how good Bahamontes and Gaul were at the TT. I think Gaul was not too bad.

Yeah because the gains made in TTs were bigger than the gains made in the climbs, unless your name is Pantani.

TTers have also adjusted to the new course profiles -- look how skinny they are compared to before.

easier for dumo to lose a couple of kgs, climb better and not lose too much in ITT, than a pure climber trying to put on weight to gain more power.

Yeah you only have to look at how big Lemond and Fignon looked compared to the riders today also Roche. Hinault was more like Evans build because they were on the short side and they could also TT well. Sastre looked tiny next to Evans.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

If a small man is a sick enough climber, he'll be a passable TT'er as well.

I don't think the problem is that people want small climbers to win, the problem is people want them to compete. That delicate balance produces the best racing. And when the slightly bulkier climbers actually dominate the climbs, that never happens.

I don't see this as a monumental thing. No pure climber was in exeptional form for 3 weeks. And I wouldn't want them to get it easily either. Quintana, on his one good day in the Tour, gave an indication on the kind of damage an outstanding climber can do.

Quintana really wasn't that impressive that day. Poels maintained the gap at 1:10 without too much issue and he got dropped twice, Martin held on to be only 30s down. If Dumoulin/Thomas/Roglic had actually cared about Quintana and followed him, they would have finished maximum 15s down. Don't think they'd have beaten him but they would've been near - his numbers were amazing because it was a 60km stage

 

[MatParker117]

Re:

If a small man is a sick enough climber, he'll be a passable TT'er as well.

I don't think the problem is that people want small climbers to win, the problem is people want them to compete. That delicate balance produces the best racing. And when the slightly bulkier climbers actually dominate the climbs, that never happens.

I don't see this as a monumental thing. No pure climber was in exeptional form for 3 weeks. And I wouldn't want them to get it easily either. Quintana, on his one good day in the Tour, gave an indication on the kind of damage an outstanding climber can do.

When he was already four minutes down.