Tour de France 2017 stage 9: Nantua > Chambéry - 181,5 km

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

AICA ribonucleotide said:
RattaKuningas said:
Anyone knows what Sunweb tactic might be? 3 of their riders are single handedly pulling the break right now.


They have Matthews in the group they are trying to get him to the intermediate sprint and making it as difficult as possible for Demare and Kittel to make the time cut.

I don't think its possible (Mathews being on the front after 2 HC climbs)
 
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
alspacka said:
Lance Armstrong said:
Time limit will be at least 50-55 min, so he is safe for now.
Way too lenient imo
Time limits have been a joke for years. It's almost impossible to miss them if you're not injured, sick or simply not trying.
What's the problem with that? I don't care if they finish the GC 10 hours down, as long as they finish. If it's possible to wait for 55 min from an organizational point of view, why should they make it less. All it would achieve is remove one contender for sprints and green jersey. Doesn't make anything more interesting.
 
Apr 29, 2017
157
0
3,830
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
alspacka said:
Lance Armstrong said:
Time limit will be at least 50-55 min, so he is safe for now.
Way too lenient imo
Time limits have been a joke for years. It's almost impossible to miss them if you're not injured, sick or simply not trying.
And even if you're not trying you'll probably not get DQd anyways. The Vuelta last year. :|
 
Re: Re:

kingjr said:
hrotha said:
alspacka said:
Lance Armstrong said:
Time limit will be at least 50-55 min, so he is safe for now.
Way too lenient imo
Time limits have been a joke for years. It's almost impossible to miss them if you're not injured, sick or simply not trying.
What's the problem with that? I don't care if they finish the GC 10 hours down, as long as they finish. If it's possible to wait for 55 min from an organizational point of view, why should they make it less. All it would achieve is remove one contender for sprints and green jersey. Doesn't make anything more interesting.
Because finishing the Tour should actually be a challenge
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
kingjr said:
hrotha said:
alspacka said:
Lance Armstrong said:
Time limit will be at least 50-55 min, so he is safe for now.
Way too lenient imo
Time limits have been a joke for years. It's almost impossible to miss them if you're not injured, sick or simply not trying.
What's the problem with that? I don't care if they finish the GC 10 hours down, as long as they finish. If it's possible to wait for 55 min from an organizational point of view, why should they make it less. All it would achieve is remove one contender for sprints and green jersey. Doesn't make anything more interesting.
Because finishing the Tour should actually be a challenge
It is a challenge one way or the other, and I absolutely fail to see what the point is to make finishing the race harder. I don't see what it achieves, except remove riders without whom stage finishes will become less interesting.
 
Re: Re:

kingjr said:
hrotha said:
alspacka said:
Lance Armstrong said:
Time limit will be at least 50-55 min, so he is safe for now.
Way too lenient imo
Time limits have been a joke for years. It's almost impossible to miss them if you're not injured, sick or simply not trying.
What's the problem with that? I don't care if they finish the GC 10 hours down, as long as they finish. If it's possible to wait for 55 min from an organizational point of view, why should they make it less. All it would achieve is remove one contender for sprints and green jersey. Doesn't make anything more interesting.
No, all it would achieve is make sure only reasonably well-rounded riders can contend sprints and the green jersey, not to mention keep helping their teammates ("well-rounded" here simply means "has modest endurance and climbing abilities and can get over bridges on a good day", not "is an all-rounder"). It also makes sure the domestiques are less fresh in subsequent stages.
 
May 24, 2015
596
0
4,580
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
kingjr said:
hrotha said:
alspacka said:
Lance Armstrong said:
Time limit will be at least 50-55 min, so he is safe for now.
Way too lenient imo
Time limits have been a joke for years. It's almost impossible to miss them if you're not injured, sick or simply not trying.
What's the problem with that? I don't care if they finish the GC 10 hours down, as long as they finish. If it's possible to wait for 55 min from an organizational point of view, why should they make it less. All it would achieve is remove one contender for sprints and green jersey. Doesn't make anything more interesting.
No, all it would achieve is make sure only reasonably well-rounded riders can contend sprints and the green jersey, not to mention keep helping their teammates ("well-rounded" here simply means "has modest endurance and climbing abilities and can get over bridges on a good day", not "is an all-rounder"). It also makes sure the domestiques are less fresh in subsequent stages.

This is exactly the trick that Sky has abused for years: for me it is very borderline (see the scandal created at last year's Vuelta).
 
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
kingjr said:
hrotha said:
alspacka said:
Lance Armstrong said:
Time limit will be at least 50-55 min, so he is safe for now.
Way too lenient imo
Time limits have been a joke for years. It's almost impossible to miss them if you're not injured, sick or simply not trying.
What's the problem with that? I don't care if they finish the GC 10 hours down, as long as they finish. If it's possible to wait for 55 min from an organizational point of view, why should they make it less. All it would achieve is remove one contender for sprints and green jersey. Doesn't make anything more interesting.
No, all it would achieve is make sure only reasonably well-rounded riders can contend sprints and the green jersey, not to mention keep helping their teammates ("well-rounded" here simply means "has modest endurance and climbing abilities and can get over bridges on a good day", not "is an all-rounder"). It also makes sure the domestiques are less fresh in subsequent stages.
And who is to decide how many minutes you can lose until you are not considered to have "modest endurance and climbing abilities"? It doesn't get more vague than that honestly. Démare rode the TdF 2 times and finished both times, now he's struggling with his health a little, it's not that he's suddenly rubbish.
 
Re: Re:

TommyGun said:
This is exactly the trick that Sky has abused for years: for me it is very borderline (see the scandal created at last year's Vuelta).
Sky's domestiques don't miss the time limit when they take it easy, and it's silly to blame them for what happened at the Vuelta last year.
 
Re: Re:

TommyGun said:
This is exactly the trick that Sky has abused for years: for me it is very borderline (see the scandal created at last year's Vuelta).

Re: Time limit. So how have Sky been abusing it for years? You gave one case, where the majority of riders were outside the limit and you could argue Sky lost the Vuelta on that day.

The real climbing starts now. There will be a big reshuffle on the next two climbs.
 
Re: Re:

kingjr said:
And who is to decide how many minutes you can lose until you are not considered to have "modest endurance and climbing abilities"? It doesn't get more vague than that honestly. Démare rode the TdF 2 times and finished both times, now he's struggling with his health a little, it's not that he's suddenly rubbish.
Who gets to decide that? That's literally what the time limits are for, obviously, but the point is that these days they are much higher than ever. Your position that everybody should be able to finish the race no matter what is no less arbitrary, but at least mine has positive effects on the racing. If Démare is so sick that he can't follow the pace of the race, he's not going to contend anything anyway, so your point is rather moot.