Tour de France: Stage 19, Bonneval - Chartres 53.5km

[Warhawk]

The man is living proof that a clean rider CAN win Le Tour de France.

Yeah, he showers and everything.

 

[JRanton]

1. Wiggins
2. Froome +1m24s
3. Van Garderen + 2m25s

.
.
10. Nibali + 3m23s
.
25. Van den Broeck +4m35s
.


It's flat and open. Expect bigger timegaps than in the previous TT.
Wind will play a bigger role and lightweight climbers will loose more ground.
Wiggins will reveal why they ride solely for him in the tour.

Nice work.

 

[Panda Claws]

Nice work.

Indeed. Those were some pretty accurate predictions.

 

[Jan the Man]

Loved the way Wiggins destroyed Froome and the rest, just goes to show why he is the team leader and if any climber had tried to put time into Wiggins in the mountains he would've crushed them all regardless.

Done the british people proud.

The man is living proof that a clean rider CAN win Le Tour de France.

Wiggins is a tt specialist who has medalled in the worlds if he didn't beat froome in the tts then there would be a talking point. Wiggins was designated leader particularly down to the tt heavy route.

What this tour has taught me and possibly other posters (who don't show up here once a year posting drivel) is that froome is arguably the second best all round current gt rider behind contador.

The dynamics of sky next year will be interesting when almost certainly there will be a more mountainous route suiting froome.

For this year chapeau to wiggins and sky, an exhibition on how to control a gt.

 

[guncha]

With such kind of performance in ITT I am wondering if two long ITT concept is applicable to TDF. Even with his best form Andy would have lost 4-5 min, Contador 2-3 min (possibly even more) to Wiggins in ITTs. It might have been impossible to balance it with proper mountain stages. If they are going to have two ITT next year then of them should short (+/- 25km) or uphill.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

With such kind of performance in ITT I am wondering if two long ITT concept is applicable to TDF. Even with his best form Andy would have lost 4-5 min, Contador 2-3 min (possibly even more) to Wiggins in ITTs. It might have been impossible to balance it with proper mountain stages. If they are going to have two ITT next year then of them should short (+/- 25km) or uphill.

If you assume that a principle of design should be not letting Wiggins win, and if you also assume Contador couldn't take 3 minutes off Wiggins in the mountains (with say, 4 MTF) then you're correct.

Weird assumptions to be making however.

 

[Dekker_Tifosi]

With such kind of performance in ITT I am wondering if two long ITT concept is applicable to TDF. Even with his best form Andy would have lost 4-5 min, Contador 2-3 min (possibly even more) to Wiggins in ITTs. It might have been impossible to balance it with proper mountain stages. If they are going to have two ITT next year then of them should short (+/- 25km) or uphill.

Not impossible. The mountain stages in this years Tour were, as I said, perfect for Wiggins. Tempocol.

I said all along before the Tour why Wiggins is favorite for me, and it wasn't just because of the time trials. There were only 3 MTF's and 2 of them were perfect for a Wiggins-type of rider. There weren't any good opportunities to gain time on Wiggins on.

If they really want to balance 2 ITT's you should put 5 MTF's in and some seriously hard climbs as well. Ventoux, Alpe d'Huez aren't even enough. Put the Gran Colombier as finishing climb like in Ain...
Look at this years Tour l'Avenir (u23) profile, the MTF's there are harder than this years Tour!

 

[SafeBet]

With such kind of performance in ITT I am wondering if two long ITT concept is applicable to TDF. Even with his best form Andy would have lost 4-5 min, Contador 2-3 min (possibly even more) to Wiggins in ITTs. It might have been impossible to balance it with proper mountain stages. If they are going to have two ITT next year then of them should short (+/- 25km) or uphill.

Andy would have lost 4-5mins in this final ITT alone. Probably around 8 if you factor the first ITT and the prologue in.

 

[Pantani_lives]

It has to be said: Wiggins' time trial was impressive, comparable to Indurain or Ullrich. Only a Contador in top shape might have beaten Wiggins by attacking in the mountains.

 

[sagard]

The time gaps are massive due to Contador, Andy Schleck and really Evans not being able to compete. Even with Contador I think Wiggins wins on this course given the strength of his team. Contador and Schleck if on form would have really tested the Wiggins/Froome/Sky relationship. It would have been a lot tougher for Froome to let actual GC threats go up the road, leaving him to pace Wiggins.

 

[Bala Verde]

Velits was +1:59 on the first ITT



He is now +1 on LLS...

So I guess Sanchez will be at 2m or slightly less, because there is nothing at stake anymore...

extrapolation is most likely highly inaccurate

Extrapolucky:

Stage classification
1.WIGGINS B. 101SKY in 1:04:13
2.FROOME C. 105SKY in 1:05:29 at 01:16
3.SANCHEZ L. 155RAB in 1:06:03 at 01:50
4.VELITS P. 199OPQ in 1:06:15 at 02:02

 

[happychappy]

Beautiful!

 

[rzombie1988]

I don't see any problem with the amount of ITT km's. The problem is the riders. Past TDF's had alot more ITT's. If the riders aren't well rounded enough to handle it, it's their fault. Like always, the strongest wins. There weren't alot of MTF's or big mountains to gain time on, so it means people have to attack sooner and take more risks to get the win. If they don't, they lose and it's no one elses fault. This TDF should be a lesson for anyone who sucks at time trailing: Get better or lose.

 

[Steady]

In a H2H who will do best on Paris Champs- Elysees?

Arashiro vs Vinokourov ?

 

[will10]

I don't see any problem with the amount of ITT km's. The problem is the riders. Past TDF's had alot more ITT's. If the riders aren't well rounded enough to handle it, it's their fault. Like always, the strongest wins. There weren't alot of MTF's or big mountains to gain time on, so it means people have to attack sooner and take more risks to get the win. If they don't, they lose and it's no one elses fault. This TDF should be a lesson for anyone who sucks at time trailing: Get better or lose.

In past Tours when there has been a comparable amount of TTing, there has been more proper mountain stages to allow the climbers to take the time back. That has not been the case this year. The ASO will tell us x amount of HC and 1 cat climbs were in the Tour this year, but look at some of the placements of these climbs. The stages to Annonay and Foix were an absolute waste from a GC point of view.

This has been the tamest TdF route in recent history.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

In past Tours when there has been a comparable amount of TTing, there has been more proper mountain stages to allow the climbers to take the time back. That has not been the case this year. The ASO will tell us x amount of HC and 1 cat climbs were in the Tour this year, but look at some of the placements of these climbs. The stages to Annonay and Foix were an absolute waste from a GC point of view.

This has been the tamest TdF route in recent history.

A tougher route would have just made Sky more dominant and people would be saying the race was even more boring than they are now. To be fair, if they had got rid of that ridiculous loop into Foix and made stage 12 a proper Alpine stage with some of the more iconic climbs the route would have been fine. Maybe a more difficult stage in week one which might have seen some GC action and given a chance for the yellow jersey to change hands at the very least.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

Ride of the year, right there.

I'm conveniently forgetting Boonen at P-R, for today anyway

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't see any problem with the amount of ITT km's. The problem is the riders. Past TDF's had alot more ITT's. If the riders aren't well rounded enough to handle it, it's their fault. Like always, the strongest wins. There weren't alot of MTF's or big mountains to gain time on, so it means people have to attack sooner and take more risks to get the win. If they don't, they lose and it's no one elses fault. This TDF should be a lesson for anyone who sucks at time trailing: Get better or lose.

There weren't a lot of MTFs or big mountains to gain time on, BUT racing was very different. No race radios, plus, and this is a big factor, the difference in quality between the best and worst rider in the péloton was FAR bigger than it is now. If a top name decided to go 2-3 climbs from the end, he wouldn't be pulled back by several domestiques, because typically several of those would already have been blasted away. Also, because the leaders didn't know exactly where the guys that attacked were, he couldn't rely on his domestiques being able to carry them all the way because he might lose way more time that way, so he'd have to stick his nose in the wind. Because of that, mountain stages with descent and then flat could often be incredibly effective. Witness a stage like Monte Faito in the Giro in the 70s, with Fuente attacking like a madman on the two climbs, knowing he had to gain enough time that Merckx wouldn't catch him again on the descent.

But the thing is, cycling is different to the way it was back then. I pine for the days of Fuente going three climbs out every day for a week because it was his only choice... but in today's péloton that's simply not feasible. The style of racing has changed; racing is much more controlled than it was then, and the riders have changed as a result of that. Cycling today is the equivalent of F1 in the fuel stop days - the guys with the computers calculating the exact numbers guys must put out to catch the break at the optimum time, then reporting it to the riders who don't think for themselves, just copy the instructions. One, two, three, jump. One, two, three, jump.

So in that respect, yes, the riders are to blame, for willingly handing over repsonsibility for racing to the guys in the car. But race organisers need to recognise the effect that that has on racing and plan accordingly. The main ploys appear to have been:
- decrease time trial mileage so that the gaps aren't as big from that
- increase difficulty of MTFs (see introduction of climbs like Angliru, Zoncolán, Finestre and Bola del Mundo in recent years), however this has been countered in two of the three GTs by a decrease in willingness to put hard multi-mountain stages together
- adding a 'bonus' challenge, like strade bianche or cobbles

The problem with the first is that it increases GC 'dead time' by replacing a TT with another interminable sprint stage (flat stages are pretty much never important for GC anymore; once upon a time they could be, but now their only contribution tends to be crashes, unless you give the riders an obstacle course like Middelburg 2010); the problem with the 2nd is that if the climb is too difficult riders then ride conservatively because they don't want to be wasted on that climb, because now losing 5 minutes could be the difference between 3rd and 13th, whereas before it may have been 3rd and 6th. And the other thing is that the UCI's points system encourages this defensive, consolidating riding - if you're in 6th place, it's more in your interests to just sit at the same pace and come 6th, than to risk an attack, blow up and drop down to 10th, because the placement is directly linked to your earning potential.

 

[jsem94]

Excellent post above.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Excellent post above.

Yes, it's very good.

 

[lanternrouge]

Excellent post above.

Totally agree.
But slating Wiggins, Sky, Cav etc (i mention them as they always seem to be flamed on here by various nutters) is not the answer.
Times change as they do in most sports.

 

[guncha]

If they really want to balance 2 ITT's you should put 5 MTF's in and some seriously hard climbs as well. Ventoux, Alpe d'Huez aren't even enough. Put the Gran Colombier as finishing climb like in Ain...
Look at this years Tour l'Avenir (u23) profile, the MTF's there are harder than this years Tour!

My idea was that nowadays favorites are very equal in mountains (for instance, AS vs AC in 2010, Wiggins, Froome, Nibali in 2012, Contador's super attack on Verbier 09 brought him just 43 seconds on Shleck). Sastre on Alpe d'Huez 08 and AS on Galibier 11 were the only multiple minute attacks in high mountains in last five years.

Each year might be different but I don't think we'll see many attacks at the foot of the climb in years to come; it is more likely favorites will wait until last 3km, 5km or 7km to attack and time gaps between top3 will be less than one minute even in the hardest mountain stages. ITT are multiple minute killers. Therefore, dominant time trialist who can stay with the best in mountains will have massive advantage over "climbers" on any route which has let's say at least 50km of ITT.

Maybe it is coincidence but TDF 09 was ruined because of early TTT while this TDF by long ITT in first week. In TDF 11 and TDF 10 the only major ITT was on penultimate day and these stages were drama. Imagine we didn't know what could Wiggins do to his opponents in ITT and gaps between Wiggins, Froome and Nibali were small before stage 19. IMHO, different and much better TDF.

Before this TDF I was convinced that 5 proper multiple climb stages for GC should balance two long ITTs. However, I am not convinced about anymore and with 2 ITTs Wiggins will be main favorite regardless the difficulty of mountain stages.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

However, I am not convinced about anymore and with 2 ITTs Wiggins will be main favorite regardless the difficulty of mountain stages.

I'm sure everybody's realised that, if you took all of the TT results out of this Tour, Brad would still be wearing yellow tomorrow. I think most are still in denial of this fact though.

The main problem has been Sky's utter dominance. In a Contador less Tour, they would have controlled and won on ANY parcours.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Why exactly is everyone saying the TT were over represented.
Looking at the TOp 10 i see.

1. The best TTler and the second best climber of the Tour
2.The second best TTler and the best climber
3. The third best climber and a Top 15 TTler
4. A Top 7 climber and a mediocere TTler
5. A Top 10 climber and a Top5 TTlist
6. A top 10 climber and a mediocere TTler
7. A Top 10 climber and a mediocere TTler (in this Tour)
8. A top 5 climber and a weak TTler
9. A Top 10 climber and TTler
10. A top 10 climber and weak TTler


So how exactly were the TTkm ove represented in this Tour again?
Please i wait for explanations

 

[Froome19]

T
- decrease time trial mileage so that the gaps aren't as big from that
- increase difficulty of MTFs (see introduction of climbs like Angliru, Zoncolán, Finestre and Bola del Mundo in recent years), however this has been countered in two of the three GTs by a decrease in willingness to put hard multi-mountain stages together
- adding a 'bonus' challenge, like strade bianche or cobbles

Which this Tour's parcours have not feautured in both examples.

This Tour's parcours imho had the potential to be the best for a long time and if it was not for the dominating nature of Team Sky it may indeed have turned out in that fashion but instead unfortunately it has transpired in another way.
But for people to complain about the parcours I find such complaints difficult to comprehend due to the reasons which Libertine stated, as Prudhomme and ASO got the parcours spot on and understood exactly what the race required to counteract the boring racing which Libertine has articulated and in another way indeed that may very well have been the case.