51Km ITT tomorrow,post your estimates here.

2»

Comments

  • jim453
    jim453 Posts: 1,360
    Mad_Malx wrote:
    Are the schedule times up anywhere?

    Want to go out for a while - something strange happening - there's this sort of yellowy light and the air is sort of dry.

    Don't know what that is but I suspect no good will come of it.

    Stay indoors with the curtains shut. Perhaps put a nice comforting pair of wellies on.

    I suspect Bradders will be off around 1530
  • fastercyclist
    fastercyclist Posts: 396
    59 minutes 59 seconds
    The British Empire never died, it just moved to the Velodrome
  • GentlemanBear
    GentlemanBear Posts: 280
    1.00.42 Wiggins
    1.00.24 Froome
  • knedlicky
    knedlicky Posts: 3,097
    Wiggins to take 1:01:13, and Froome to be 40 secs back.
    TJ to take third place at 1:15 and as consequence move up to 4th in the GC (because VdB will be over 3 mins back in the TT).
    Pinot to drop out of the GC top 10 to be replaced by Roche.
    Maybe Rolland also to fall out of the top 10 to be replaced by Klöden.
    The Beatles to give a concert at Chartres this evening.


    (Well a French 'Beatles Revival' band)
  • Clements753
    Clements753 Posts: 77
    I wasn't trolling at all - I steer clear of all the doping or Cav threads for instance.

    The title asked for us to post our estimates for today. I posted my estimate of the outcome not the actual time, time in a time trial is meaningless as every day is different.

    Time against the other riders is the important thing.

    I said Wiggo would win it by over a minute, whats trolling about that when it was correct????????
  • jim453
    jim453 Posts: 1,360
    Clements753 wrote:
    I wasn't trolling at all - I steer clear of all the doping or Cav threads for instance.

    The title asked for us to post our estimates for today. I posted my estimate of the outcome not the actual time, time in a time trial is meaningless as every day is different.

    Time against the other riders is the important thing.

    I said Wiggo would win it by over a minute, whats trolling about that when it was correct????????

    Now this is definitely a troll.

    So you posted something that categorically was not asked for and failed to post the (very simple) thing that was. Then you presume to waste all our time by 'educating' us about what a TT actually is.

    It was a simple game.

    You failed to understand it.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Luckao wrote:
    1:05:00

    Yeah, I went there. I probably shouldn't have.

    You were closest though.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • luckao
    luckao Posts: 632
    I initially opted for 1.04.30, but I stuck on another 30 seconds to account for his efforts over the last few days. He performed better than I expected.

    I thought that anything under 1:01:30 was crazy. I'm surprised anybody went for it.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Luckao wrote:
    I thought that anything under 1:01:30 was crazy. I'm surprised anybody went for it.

    I went for 1.01.01 just because the numbers were all the same. Cavendish had the same idea, posting 1.11.11
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • knedlicky
    knedlicky Posts: 3,097
    Luckao wrote:
    I thought that anything under 1:01:30 was crazy. I'm surprised anybody went for it.
    I went for under 1:01:30 because I used Gretsch as my marker.
    So either at Besancon Gretsch under-performed/Wiggins over-performed, or today Gretsch over-performed/Wiggins under-performed.
    Either way it doesn’t matter; Gretsch is a name for the future.


    (I at least got it right about the Beatles concert!)

Categories