Not a daft quesion, just an inquisitive idiot

attica

I watched the tour more closely this year than I ever have before and as a result I have one question that probably shows my ignorance:-

Why is it such a great advantage to have your team lead you out in a sprint?
Surely It doesn't matter who leads out as long as you're in the right position come the last few metres. Obviously if nobody lead out the whole thing would break down, but isn't positioning yourself easier if you're on your own near the front?

iainf72

The short answer is because you get a predictable lead out and they will go eye balls out with you on their wheel with no question. You also won't need to fight for their wheels.

But you're right, if you're in the right position it doesn't matter (See Robbie McEwen for example)

prideofcheshire

Im an extreme newbie, could you explain your lingo there iain please?

redddraggon

Imagine that a few people sprint against each other - some will be faster than others.

Now if you line those guys up with the slowest first, fastest last, and set them off sprinting. The guy at the front will set off and the other guys drafting behind him will be able to get his speed without expending as much energy, the first guy peels off and the second slowest guy accelerates the line to his speed - again the guys behind are saving energy.

Normally the second fastest rider is considered the "lead out guy" (e.g. Ciolek - often pretty good sprinters in their own right), he will take the main sprinter to his speed, not far off the sprinters speed, the main sprinter having conserved energy being "towed" upto near max sprinting speed before he unleashes his sprint.

(I know what I meant to say - but whether or not I did is another matter :shock: )

prideofcheshire

Hmmmm, i kinda know what you mean. There's more to this cycling lark than i thought! Thanks for your patience redddragon.

takethehighroad

Just because I'm being a nosey barsteward, what reasons did you watch the Tour this year for, and what attracted you the most?

Just a curios thought as I've got my reasons as a long term fan, but if were to believe the national press no one gives a flying frig about getting into cycling at the moment.

cougie

Are you sure about that ? Coverage of the Tour must have been the biggest yet. All the radio stations were keen to talk about Cav winning his stages (which was a pain if you wanted to watch the highlights) and there were more column inches in the papers than normal. We had a choice of ITV and Eurosport to watch, plus podcasts galore.

Triathlon is the biggest growing sport at the moment- and they all need bikes - so where are these articles you mention ? Doesnt seem to tie in with my experience ?

takethehighroad

cougie wrote:

Are you sure about that ? Coverage of the Tour must have been the biggest yet. All the radio stations were keen to talk about Cav winning his stages (which was a pain if you wanted to watch the highlights) and there were more column inches in the papers than normal. We had a choice of ITV and Eurosport to watch, plus podcasts galore.

Triathlon is the biggest growing sport at the moment- and they all need bikes - so where are these articles you mention ? Doesnt seem to tie in with my experience ?

Of course they were going to talk about Cav, but other than that they didn't seem too interested. There's always been ITV, Eurosport and podcasts for the last couple of years at least

I was mostly talking about before the start of the race, the English press were VERY apprehensive about throwing their collective weight behind cycling, and I'm pleased that new fans are still turning on to the coverage. All I'm asking is what is convincing people to switch on.

knedlicky

Attica has a valid question, some team behaviour before a sprint is as antiquitated as the kick-and-rush football still practised by some premier league teams, despite the influx of more technically-able foreign players.

In the big tours, so often you see teams lead out too soon (happened regularly to Zabel a few years back) or lead out without sufficient power to last the distance. (several instances this Tour). They only take other teams in their slipstream, who then take over, or let individuals be able to sprint forward – not just McEwen and Cavendish but also Freire and Hunter mostly win as individuals.

The only successful traditional lead-out and sprint this year was, from those I saw, the Quick Step/Steegmanns win on the Champs-Elysees at the end. It was very good for that, but also a rarity.

I think a more controlled pace up to the last 500-1000 m and then an increased speed would give better odds on victory for several teams, but as long as most teams don’t employ such tactics from the last 5 km or so onwards, no team who ever thinks of alternative tactics will ever have a chance of behaving differently.

redddraggon

knedlicky wrote:

Attica has a valid question, some team behaviour before a sprint is as antiquitated as the kick-and-rush football still practised by some premier league teams, despite the influx of more technically-able foreign players.

I thought Cipo was one of the first riders to have a proper sprint train - so it can't be that antiquitated.

knedlicky

redddraggon wrote:

I thought Cipo was one of the first riders to have a proper sprint train - so it can't be that antiquitated.

I think the idea of 'trains' goes farther back, into the 70s, though Cipo's in the 90s usually worked perfectly. On short sprints he probably would have won anyway - his charm, you know.

attica

Thanks All for the in depth replies, there are a lot more subtle nuances than at first apparent.

As for why I am starting to watch the tour - you'll like this - I used to follow F1 religiously and keep an eye on the tour but I got sooo bored of F1, especially now Schumi has gone.
The politics of F1, cheating, unfair punishments, sporting governing bodies with their own agendas are all par for the course, but the actual racing in F1 is just so dull.

As Colin Chapman once said "If you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough"

Vive le tour!

takethehighroad

That's interesting, with all the people starting to get into F1 because of Hamilton.

I'm the other way round and I will follow the Formula 1 from a distance, and watch the odd race now and again.

Glad to hear that cycling is getting new(ish) fans anyway, it's been all doom and gloom as far as I was concerned for the last couple of years.

attica

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

That's interesting, with all the people starting to get into F1 because of Hamilton.

True, Hamilton does seem to be a diamond in the dung heap and I'll continue to follow the sport for that reason, but there's far too much overtaking in the pitlane and not on the track.