Tour de France Tour de France 2024, Stage 11: Évaux-les-Bains > Le Lioran, 211km

[Netserk]

Does anyone know what happened to Gall on this stage? PCS lists -20” time loss in red as if some sort of penalty.

I suspect it was after his mechanical earlier in the stage.

 

[Nick2413]

Gall had quite the stage yesterday, he was dropped many times, at some point I think he had moto assistance getting back on hence the penalty. Insane where he finished, get money on him winning one of those big mtn stages in week 3.

Agreed, looking forward to seeing his 3rd week form and this weekend.

 

[proffate]

However, it looked very close today, and I attribute Pogi's surprising loss in a hill sprint more to the fact that his breakaway was 1) longer and 2) solo, until Jonas catched him.

I also didn't get to watch until last night. Pog's sprints (final and the penultimate kom) both looked categorically different from his normal sprint as his gearing was very low. The cameras also zoomed in on the gears at one point during the run in to highlight that Pog was in the small ring while Ving was in the big ring. So I think Pog was just cooked, one way or another, even compared to what we see from him during long solo raids this year. I don't know if that's hunger bonk or just going too deep or what. The weird thing is that he did it to himself, no one else cooked him.

 

[Berflamand]

I suspect it was after his mechanical earlier in the stage.

I don't remember where I read it but I thought it was because of illegal feeding in the last 20km of the race.

 

[Nick2413]

I don't remember where I read it but I thought it was because of illegal feeding in the last 20km of the race.

Speaking of illegal feeding, I don’t think I understand the point of that rule. Is it to limit potential team car drafting assistance or a safety thing not wanting cars all over the place near the finish?

 

[proffate]

As it covers punctures and other mechanical incidences, it's nonsense to say that the spirit of the rule is (solely) about group crashes and safer finishes.

Punctures are (supposedly) no fault of the rider. Crashes are often no fault of the rider. The rule was probably intended to cover both safety and to remove a degree of randomness because few want to see races decided by luck.

Roglic's crash was his own damn fault (descending behind Remco? Well fried then) and while I don't blame him for accepting the help from the commissars, I hope the UCI revises the rule in some way to prevent this situation from recurring. If there were any ambiguity whatsoever as to whether this crash were 100% Rog's fault, I think we'd be having a different conversation.

 

[proffate]

Another 'what if' question:
What if there was no moto camera to film the crash? If it wasn't captured on video did the crash ever happen? Do they need to look for independent witnesses?

Cunning roglic twisted his left shifter in, and I'm guessing tore up his kit a little bit. If he were able to fool the world that convincingly, I think he'd earn the bonus seconds he got. At least he'd have done something for them.

This reminds me of the old crit racer's trick. If you think you have a slow leak but can't stop mid race to check, stop on the far side of the course where no one can see you. If the tire's fine, let the air out manually so you still get your free lap.

 

[Red Lobster]

This reminds me of the old crit racer's trick. If you think you have a slow leak but can't stop mid race to check, stop on the far side of the course where no one can see you. If the tire's fine, let the air out manually so you still get your free lap.

Worked great ... except for those races where a canny official would reinflate your tire after the wheelchange to check for such shenanigans - not that I would have any first hand experience with this.

 

[ingsve]

Where do you stand on this now?

It was still greedy to race that stage. The favorites have so many other stages where no one else has a chance to compete while this stage was ideal for a lot of riders to fight for in a break. The only reason the stage became decisive is because they refused to let a break go so the first 100 km were ridden way harder than necessary.

 

[shadowrider]

@red_flanders

OK so in your opinion the rule should be amended and only to be applied if:

• More than 2 cyclists sprint at the finish line.
• Doesn't include dangerous descend.
• The finish is pancake flat.
• Riders crashing should be excluded and not protected by the rule.

Basically what you are saying is you are against such rule in the first place, as your suggestions invalidate it altogether. Or, are you suggesting that the rule should only exclude Rogla and the rest of the rule works for you? Due to being salty Rogla finished 21s down on stage winner and in the same time as Remco today. Something we see very often, when other riders involved, and nobody even mentions it.

So, in this case. Roglic being alone in the descent. Crashing..... and losing time at the finish.
So, Roglic being dropped a few lengths in the descent by Evenepoel (probably after making another "slip-up) and just coming back at a too high speed before the corner.... and crash, as he did. Roglic being "awarded" the same time of Evenepoel. Where is the logic?

 

[CyclistAbi]

@shadowrider

You literary see this in every couple of stages and nobody complains about it, that is on why it's called the crash rule. But OK, if you guys want for Remco to be excluded from such rule, then go for it. If you feel that it's fair for the peloton to be under such rule and just Remco to be excluded. I feel you are just being silly but if that is what you want i won't stand in the way.

 

[shadowrider]

@shadowrider

You literary see this in every couple of stages and nobody complains about it, that is on why it's called the crash rule. But OK, if you guys want for Remco to be excluded from such rule, then go for it. If you feel that it's fair for the peloton to be under such rule and just Remco to be excluded. I feel you are just being silly but if that is what you want i won't stand in the way.

It's a good and fair rule. But not in a mountainstage with the last summit WITHIN the 3 km. And a difficult last hundred of meters till the finish. So, Evenepoel crashing in that descend, at less than 3 km of the finish, would have to lose that extra time as well. What I'm complaining about is that a rider who is alone and having a crash gets the real time at the finish, and a rider who happens to be riding a few lengths in front of or behind someone and crashes, gets the same time.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@shadowrider

Yes, those are the generally accepted rules and the rider crashing first isn't excluded. That is exactly on what happened yesterday so it's a clear case and no ambiguity involved. Luckily people involed were up to the task, as forum would still be debating and interpreting a rather straightforward rule.

 

[SHAD0W93]

You can diss other riders in interviews, be salty about it and are entitled to believe you are in the right ... No problem with that. What else would we then discuss on the forums.

Such actions on the other hand are crossing the boundary. I am sure that if Remco would continue with such actions he would need to face the consequences too. Said that i am sure that he will never do it again.

We already saw how Roglic treats those who don’t contribute to the group riding, Evenepoel needs to look out.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Is anyone else finding it funny that Pog is completely ignoring the fact that Rog is in the race? Pog is aware that Vingo is in the race and Vingo is coming for him. Pog and Remco have decided to buddy up and are co conspirators but Rog isn't worth dropping? I have a different attitude. I let my wife catch up so I can drop her all over again. The fun never ends.

The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[red_flanders]

Apparently this incredible stage had even more action than I thought!