Tour de France Tour de France 2022: Stage 2 (Roskilde – Nyborg, 202.2k)

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
ehmm yes that is how it should work. If there is a time gap, and you're not affected by a crash, but you just let go, you should loose time.
What about the situation when a rider is caught behind the crash, but he is not directly involved, he gets by it unharmed and decides to soft pedal till the end, because he knows he'll get the same time anyway. Why should he be the one rewarded? It's impossible to assess objectively. In these situations, if you want to neutralise the times because of the crash, the only smart thing to do is to take all the time gaps at the time the crash happened.
 
What about the situation when a rider is caught behind the crash, but he is not directly involved, he gets by it unharmed and decides to soft pedal till the end, because he knows he'll get the same time anyway. Why should he be the one rewarded? It's impossible to assess objectively. In these situations, if you want to neutralise the times because of the crash, the only smart thing to do is to take all the time gaps at the time the crash happened.
When a riders is caught behind a crash he is obviously indirectly involved. Simply because the road is blocked. Of course the rider can soft pedal to the finish line. I was talking about riders riding in front of the crash and then letting go.
 
I've written one post about this already but this topic annoys me enough to write a second one. It's incredible how everyone and his mother was hyped for that bridge when we have known for an entire day that there will be headwind on it. I don't want to listen to commentators for hours talking about the epicness that awaits when the evidence against it is right in front of their eyes. I know it's their job to make things more exciting than they are but in this case it felt like they were genuinely clueless.
 
I've written one post about this already but this topic annoys me enough to write a second one. It's incredible how everyone and his mother was hyped for that bridge when we have known for an entire day that there will be headwind on it. I don't want to listen to commentators for hours talking about the epicness that awaits when the evidence against it is right in front of their eyes. I know it's their job to make things more exciting than they are but in this case it felt like they were genuinely clueless.
Blythe was wetting his pants about it saying how mental the descent of it is going to be.
 
Next year at least we will finally have a foreign Grand Tour start that isn't just a TT and 2 sprints. Something to look forward to after Denmark, Israel, Hungary, Germany, Netherlands ∞
Probably more chance they do a 200 km criterium, a 5 km flat TT and a 180 km flat stage with one km of gravel road or cobbles. But yes still two sprints and pointless TT.
 
When a riders is caught behind a crash he is obviously indirectly involved. Simply because the road is blocked. Of course the rider can soft pedal to the finish line. I was talking about riders riding in front of the crash and then letting go.
I understand what you were talking about. But how is this fair?

Let's say we have rider A. He pays great attention, is always riding in front and making big effort trying to avoid crashes. They enter 3km to go and a crash happens near him. He doesn't lose his position and stays with the front group, where he still rides hard till 300m to go where he for one reason or another lets go and loses 5s to the winner.

Then you have rider B. He doesn't care, he is always riding at the back, soft pedalling. The bunch enters 3km to go and a crash happens 30 riders in front of him. He isn't directly involved, he doesn't even stop pedalling, loses maybe only 2s and if he had made an effort, he could have easily caught the group in front of him. But he doesn't care. He soft pedals still. Comes across the finish line while chatting with other riders 3 minutes behind the winner. And somehow he gets rewarded with the same time as the winner...really? That's nonsense.

Edit:
Nonsense to penalise rider A with 5s gap and give rider B same time as the winner. Or you neutralise the stage at the time of the crash and give both riders the same time or give them both their actual time gap.
 
Last edited:
I've written one post about this already but this topic annoys me enough to write a second one. It's incredible how everyone and his mother was hyped for that bridge when we have known for an entire day that there will be headwind on it. I don't want to listen to commentators for hours talking about the epicness that awaits when the evidence against it is right in front of their eyes. I know it's their job to make things more exciting than they are but in this case it felt like they were genuinely clueless.
It's kinda hard to keep your job as a commentator when you basically say like "yeah mate go outside or something and tune back in in 2 hours."

I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll never be a commentator.
 
Reactions: TourOfSardinia
More inspiring, but worldwide, Cav breaking the record would be the only major news from this Tour that is known to the non-cycling fan. The major sports sites here in America would only report special occasions like that. They would not take their time to show anything about Jakobsen. Cav should’ve been here with Jakobsen IMO.
There's not enough sprint stages to justify two sprinters, especially when they don't do much outside of being able to sprint.
 
I understand what you were talking about. But how is this fair?

Let's say we have rider A. He pays great attention, is always riding in front and making big effort trying to avoid crashes. They enter 3km to go and a crash happens near him. He doesn't lose his position and stays with the front group, where he still rides hard till 300m to go where he for one reason or another lets go and loses 5s to the winner.

Then you have rider B. He doesn't care, he is always riding at the back, soft pedalling. The bunch enters 3km to go and a crash happens 30 riders in front of him. He isn't directly involved, he doesn't even stop pedalling, loses maybe only 2s and if he had made an effort, he could have easily caught the group in front of him. But he doesn't care. He soft pedals still. Comes across the finish line while chatting with other riders 3 minutes behind the winner. And somehow he gets rewarded with the same time as the winner...really? That's nonsense.

Edit:
Nonsense to penalise rider A with 5s gap and give rider B same time as the winner. Or you neutralise the stage at the time of the crash and give both riders the same time or give them both their actual time gap.
I understand your point of view, but I do disagree. It is fair because it is a bike race, about being the fastest from start to finish. It has nothing to do about penalizing rider A. Rider A doesn't cross the finish line in the same time as the winner. In a mountain stage they battle for every second, but somehow in a sprint those seconds are irrelevant. That doesn't make any sense. Rider A is simply not strong enough to cross the line in the same time as the winner, in any other race that means you're loosing time.
I do agree somehow that rider B gets an advantage. Although he's not loosing time on purpose, because he's blocked by a crash.
 
I was a bit nervous when I saw riders crashing on this bridge, today. The height of the bridge is almost 70 meters. If riders crash, and a rider falls over the railing, he falls down nearly 70 meters. Down there, there is water - but water is as hard as concrete, if you fall on it from 70 meters. Normally, one would not survive such a fall.

Glad that no one fell down from the bridge, today…
 
I was a bit nervous when I saw riders crashing on this bridge, today. The height of the bridge is almost 70 meters. If riders crash, and a rider falls over the railing, he falls down nearly 70 meters. Down there, there is water - but water is as hard as concrete, if you fall on it from 70 meters. Normally, one would not survive such a fall.

Glad that no one fell down from the bridge, today…
Yeah, I didn't like it either, to be honest.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY