Final Tour mark overall

meanredspider

KingstonGraham wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Sagan's win when his foot came out of the pedal? Demare's sprint win with Sagan being thrown out?

Just two examples of where failure made the Tour interesting.

Sagan really didn't fail on that stage.

No - but to him have his foot come clear (a failure) was a key talking point. On that one sprint, he was totally dominant. Then he went on to take Cav out and get himself disqualified in a subsequent stage.

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Still fairly sure Kittel didn't use them on anything but the flattest days...

All the ones he won, you mean?

Yeah but the argument about discs at pro level is about weight as you know.

Arguably braking performance is more important on mountainous stages with big important decents so if weight wasn't an issue on those stages they'd be no brainers for everyone...

confused@BR

7 for me. The best thing about Grand Tours is the many stories being played out behind the GC battle. The course was different but ASO should mix things sometimes (and help Bardet, he's French doncha know).
The loss of Valverde meant one big team went MIA as Quintana was cooked but AG2R made every effort to contest the overall. Live tv is a mixed blessing but better than not and French scenery is lovely. LRP crashing & damaging Dan Martin's chances was a tragedy and Sky managed their efforts to ensure Froome has as good a chance of winning the Vuelta whilst also contesting the Tour. I found it all absorbing.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Still fairly sure Kittel didn't use them on anything but the flattest days...

All the ones he won, you mean?

Yeah but the argument about discs at pro level is about weight as you know.

Arguably braking performance is more important on mountainous stages with big important decents so if weight wasn't an issue on those stages they'd be no brainers for everyone...

I don't know what he was riding in the mountains. Kittel, understandably, doesn't get much coverage in the mountains. As for weight (without wanting to go over old ground all over) I thought the consensus was that weight was immaterial as the bikes could be made to be lighter than the UCI limit but, in fact, were always heavier? (Let's not have that debate here - as it's waaaay off topic). What I would like to know (which seems impossible to find) is what bikes people are riding on any given day of the Tour.

redvision

KingstonGraham wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

And Kittel was different because....?

Only because he was awesome. Even that got predictable after a while. There's a bunch of teams bringing there lead-out men and sprinters up to the front. But where's Kittel? Oh, here he comes "surfing" up on his own. Bam. All over. Even he had the good grace to do one dead heat that made it slightly more interesting for a few minutes...

So Kittel's days were good because of awesomeness in the last minute (5), no one can deny stages 9, 13, 16 were entertaining, surely? Sagan's win when his foot came out of the pedal? Demare's sprint win with Sagan being thrown out? Matthews beating GVA and Aru losing time? Bardet and Aru beating Froome on two mountaintop finishes? Barguil crowning the polka dots on Izoard? Paris? Not a dull end to any of those, and that makes over two thirds of the stages.

The end of any stage should be exciting. Be it a sprint or a mtf, the final few metres should always be great to watch.

The issue with this tour was that the majority of the stages were just dull. Team sky had the whole thing under control from the start to finish and the only times they looked in a bit of bother was when they had mechanicals. Some teams did try to shake things up, but sky are the king of working to power and knew full well that they will pull the breaks back (when needed). Quite simply, as a spectacle this tour ranks low because, despite the relatively close final times for the podium, Froome was always going to win and sky dominance continued.

rick_chasey

supermurph09

6 from me, I think it flattered to deceive. When Froome appeared vulnerable he still easily brought himself back into it, you never had the sense anything was out of his control. Bike changes, wheels swaps were all close by when he needed them. Too many people failed, Quintana was way off, Contador not the force although the TT was a surprise.

The biggest shame of the race was Dan Martin, admittedly he was allowed to attack because of the position he was in but he looked super strong and with some more support around him that would have been great to see play out, Porte for me will always have a bad day that'll cost him.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah, yes, that shows it.

I'm desperately trying not to draw a link between the picture and the brakes...

inseine

I'm still baffled as to how people can't enjoy Contador on the attack for 100k, Calmejane winning on Bastille day despite cramping on the last climb, Sunweb blowing the field apart in the crossword did etc etc just because they're sure Froome will take the overall.

inseine

inseine wrote:

I'm still baffled as to how people can't enjoy Contador on the attack for 100k, Calmejane winning on Bastille day despite cramping on the last climb, Sunweb blowing the field apart in the crosswind did etc etc just because they're sure Froome will take the overall.

inseine

I edited myself because spell check write crossword instead of crosswind lol.

lostboysaint

inseine wrote:

I'm still baffled as to how people can't enjoy Contador on the attack for 100k, Calmejane winning on Bastille day despite cramping on the last climb, Sunweb blowing the field apart in the crossword did etc etc just because they're sure Froome will take the overall.

AG2R getting aggressive on the downs as well as the ups.

I'm reading some of these comments wondering whether I watched the same tour. 7/10 from me. Closest GC for years, the yellow jersey losing time in the mountains, teams trying new tactics, new faces to the fore. Lots of good stuff, some dull.

iainf72

lostboysaint wrote:

I'm reading some of these comments wondering whether I watched the same tour. 7/10 from me. Closest GC for years, the yellow jersey losing time in the mountains, teams trying new tactics, new faces to the fore. Lots of good stuff, some dull.

Froome lost time in the mountains to the guys who ended up 2 and 3 in GC once all race. But he took time from both of them on 2 occasions on the road

Last year his main challengers took time from him on the road 3 times.

There were some good stages but the GC battle was a dud.

If we average all the Tours in history, we should get a 5/10, right?

inseine

iainf72 wrote:

lostboysaint wrote:

I'm reading some of these comments wondering whether I watched the same tour. 7/10 from me. Closest GC for years, the yellow jersey losing time in the mountains, teams trying new tactics, new faces to the fore. Lots of good stuff, some dull.

Froome lost time in the mountains to the guys who ended up 2 and 3 in GC once all race. But he took time from both of them on 2 occasions on the road

Last year his main challengers took time from him on the road 3 times.

There were some good stages but the GC battle was a dud.

If we average all the Tours in history, we should get a 5/10, right?

That's not unreasonable, though I'd give it more. I just think some people either think the Tour is never more than a 6 or they can only judge in hindsight, given how the overall panned out rather than judging it stage by stage whether it was an enjoyable watch.

squired

4/10 for me.

I was a course that was engineered to (a) help Bardet win and (b) force riders to do the unexpected. Instead it achieved neither. Too many generic sprint stages.

The highlight of the Tour for me was being able to follow the whole race via ITV, rather than Eurosport. They did an excellent job with their commentary package. A couple of times I did switch to Eurosport and heard CK with Sean Kelly. I immediately felt the relief at having a high quality alternative. We all know the issues with Carlton and Sean actually adds very little insight in terms of the nuances of what is going on in the race.

The Giro showed that less is not better with a race that went to the wire despite lots of decent climbs. You need a number of tough mountain finishes and if you have challengers on a similar level you may get the drama of good/bad days, which the Giro certainly provided. With the Tour there was so little that one bad day or one really aggressive move might end your GC hopes, so people rode cautiously.

A close GC does not mean exciting if they are just coming in together every day. A close GC where one guy takes a minute today and loses 90 seconds tomorrow is exciting/interesting.

Looking at the Vuelta route I'm far more excited. Plenty of interesting looking stage profiles. Plenty of climbing finishes, often with little or no valley between the penultimate and final climbs. Lots of irregular profile stages that will not serve up automatic sprint finishes and thus give hope to aggressive breakaways or late attacks.

knedlicky

meanredspider wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Still fairly sure Kittel didn't use them on anything but the flattest days...

All the ones he won, you mean?

meanredspider wrote:

What I would like to know (which seems impossible to find) is what bikes people are riding on any given day of the Tour.

Not sure exactly what you’d like to know, but maybe this answers some of it re Kittel (and I hope I’ve got my facts right):
- Cannondale’s basic World Tour bike is the Cannondale SuperSix Evo with Cannondale HollowGram Carbon wheels
- On stages 2, 6, 7 and 10 (all of which he won) Kittel instead rode a Spezialized Venge Vias Disc, so a non-Cannondale frame with disc brakes (His stage 2 win was the first-ever Tour stage victory on disc wheels; he managed the stage 11 win on the usual Cannondale)
- The Venge Vias had 140 mm discs (by contrast, discs for non-professionals, at least on the front wheel, are usually 160 mm for better heat control)
- A chain-catcher was specially attached to the Venge Vias frame to stop the chain jumping off during the sprint (I’m surprised these aren’t standard)
- The bike had Vision Metron handlebars, not S-Works Aerofly Vias (which is what the Venge Vias normally has. Eitherway both are oval/aerodynamically-shaped)
- The emergency bike for Kittel carried by the team car on those 4 days was also a Specialized Venge Vias, however without disc brakes. Instead, it had caliper brakes, these custom-made by Specialized just for the Roval rims

knedlicky

lostboysaint wrote:

7/10 from me. Closest GC for years, the yellow jersey losing time in the mountains, teams trying new tactics, new faces to the fore. Lots of good stuff, some dull.

Presumably this includes Astana and Uran chasing down Bardet, and towing Froome along too, on the Chambéry stage, when it should have been the other way around.

kingstongraham

iainf72 wrote:

If we average all the Tours in history, we should get a 5/10, right?

Not necessarily. It depends on the rating system you have invented in your head.

hypster

I think most people's dissatisfaction stems from the fact that they didn't get the result they wanted especially from the point of view of hindsight. All the way through the time gaps were very slim between several riders and to say Sky and Froome always had it in the bag is laughable.

Sagan had the green jersey in the bag and so did Kittel apparently and look what happened to them.

inseine

- On stages 2, 6, 7 and 10 (all of which he won) Kittel instead rode a Spezialized Venge Vias Disc, so a non-Cannondale frame with disc brakes (His stage 2 win was the first-ever Tour stage victory on disc wheels; he managed the stage 11 win on the usual Cannondale)

Why does Kittel ride a Cannondale?

kingstongraham

inseine wrote:

- On stages 2, 6, 7 and 10 (all of which he won) Kittel instead rode a Spezialized Venge Vias Disc, so a non-Cannondale frame with disc brakes (His stage 2 win was the first-ever Tour stage victory on disc wheels; he managed the stage 11 win on the usual Cannondale)

Why does Kittel ride a Cannondale?

Stage 11 looks very much like a Specialized with disc brakes.

As QS ride Specialized bikes, I can't see any good reason why he would be on "the usual Cannondale".

meanredspider

hypster wrote:

to say Sky and Froome always had it in the bag is laughable.
.

I don't remember who the two invited expert guests on R4 were this morning but this was the one thing they agreed upon. Sky just managed the effort accordingly. They might both be wrong of course.

meanredspider

knedlicky wrote:

Not sure exactly what you’d like to know, but maybe this answers some of it re Kittel (and I hope I’ve got my facts right):
- Cannondale’s basic World Tour bike is the Cannondale SuperSix Evo with Cannondale HollowGram Carbon wheels
- On stages 2, 6, 7 and 10 (all of which he won) Kittel instead rode a Spezialized Venge Vias Disc, so a non-Cannondale frame with disc brakes (His stage 2 win was the first-ever Tour stage victory on disc wheels; he managed the stage 11 win on the usual Cannondale)
- The Venge Vias had 140 mm discs (by contrast, discs for non-professionals, at least on the front wheel, are usually 160 mm for better heat control)
- A chain-catcher was specially attached to the Venge Vias frame to stop the chain jumping off during the sprint (I’m surprised these aren’t standard)
- The bike had Vision Metron handlebars, not S-Works Aerofly Vias (which is what the Venge Vias normally has. Eitherway both are oval/aerodynamically-shaped)
- The emergency bike for Kittel carried by the team car on those 4 days was also a Specialized Venge Vias, however without disc brakes. Instead, it had caliper brakes, these custom-made by Specialized just for the Roval rims

That's really interesting thanks.

I'll disagree with the "non-professionals" bit on 160 discs because (according to what I read at least) the UCI has agreed on 160 standard for front wheels. This may have contributed to him not always taking the disc Venge as the neutral support vehicles wouldn't have been able to sort him in the event of a flat.

fat daddy

knedlicky wrote:

- Cannondale’s basic World Tour bike is the Cannondale SuperSix Evo with Cannondale HollowGram Carbon wheels

that's all well and good ... But Kittel doesn't ride for Cannondale ... he rides for Quickstep

knedlicky wrote:

- On stages 2, 6, 7 and 10 (all of which he won) Kittel instead rode a Spezialized Venge Vias Disc, so a non-Cannondale frame with disc brakes (His stage 2 win was the first-ever Tour stage victory on disc wheels; he managed the stage 11 win on the usual Cannondale)

In that picture ... he his sat on the floor with his S-Works bike ... the one with S-Works on it ...... the Cannondale bike being lifted up in the picture isn't his .. it belongs to the Cannondale Rider

mind you it did momentarily confuse me seeing that Kittel was Dressed in Green

edited ... I stuck stage 11 in here .... brain freeze

meanredspider

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stage 11 looks very much like a Specialized with disc brakes.

I'd agree

hypster

meanredspider wrote:

hypster wrote:

to say Sky and Froome always had it in the bag is laughable.
.

I don't remember who the two invited expert guests on R4 were this morning but this was the one thing they agreed upon. Sky just managed the effort accordingly. They might both be wrong of course.

But again I reiterate the judgement is all down to hindsight expert or not. If anyone thought this Tour was boring and a foregone conclusion as they were watching live, stage by stage, then they should have switched off and gone and done something else.

I'm guessing several thousand lost interest when their personal favourite in Valverde/Sagan/Cav/Porte/Thomas/Fuglsang/Kittel went out as well.

meanredspider

hypster wrote:

But again I reiterate the judgement is all down to hindsight expert or not. If anyone thought this Tour was boring and a foregone conclusion as they were watching live, stage by stage, then they should have switched off and gone and done something else.
.

Yup - but I suppose the question to you was what makes you believe it was ever significantly at risk? I'm not expert enough to judge which is why I listened to the experts R4 trusted. From what I saw and from what the commentators said, it never looked significantly at risk and because of that, it didn't seem particularly exciting.

Of course, it's all an opinion but then "interest" and "excitement" is always subjective.

And I was watching because I had very little else to do (though I wish I had)

hypster

meanredspider wrote:

hypster wrote:

But again I reiterate the judgement is all down to hindsight expert or not. If anyone thought this Tour was boring and a foregone conclusion as they were watching live, stage by stage, then they should have switched off and gone and done something else.
.

Yup - but I suppose the question to you was what makes you believe it was ever significantly at risk? I'm not expert enough to judge which is why I listened to the experts R4 trusted. From what I saw and from what the commentators said, it never looked significantly at risk and because of that, it didn't seem particularly exciting.

Of course, it's all an opinion but then "interest" and "excitement" is always subjective.

And I was watching because I had very little else to do (though I wish I had)

Well on Stage 5 to La Planche de Belle Filles, Chris Froome lost 26 seconds to Aru including time bonuses and ended up only 14 seconds ahead of him on GC. Dan Martin and Richey Porte were 25 and 39 seconds back respectively. Then on Stage 12 to Peyragudes Froome looked like a carthorse and Aru took the MJ off him. Landa rode away to finish in front of Froome and everyone was predicting he was going to take over the leadership of Sky in the event of Froome failing.

At this point surely you can agree that it was at least touch-and-go for Froome's chances of retaining the title even with the time trial to come on Stage 20? Indeed the very next Stage Landa is well up the road and in virtual yellow if he won the stage and got the 10 second time bonus.

Then on Stage 15 AG2R attack en-masse on the Cat 1 climb and almost simultaneously Froome breaks a spoke and ends up 45 seconds down. All the "experts" I have heard commenting on this stage seemed to be of the same opinion that if Froome hadn't made it back into the group by the top of the climb it would have been game over. I watched that stage live and in my opinion it was electrifying and Froome's chase to get back on was epic. Dan Martin attacked on the descent and managed to get over a minute out of Froome so imagine what a concerted effort from AG2R and Bardet would have produced?

I know opinions are all subjective and I accept that many people don't like Froome but to suggest that he had it all sewn up at any point other than by Stage 20 is just nonsense. Nobody could have known how Aru, Bardet, Uran and Martin were going to perform relative to Froome in the final week and that goes for anyone that wants to call themselves an expert.

I still say most people's negative appraisal of the Tour is down to hindsight which is also linked to the fact that their "man" didn't get the result.

Personally speaking I didn't get the result I wanted either - Cav winning 5 sprint stages, Sagan taking green, Simon Yates polka dot jersey and Froome winning by 5 minutes from Richey Porte and crushing everyone on the Planche de Belle Filles as previous. You can't have everything though...

bobmcstuff

hypster wrote:

Then on Stage 15 AG2R attack en-masse on the Cat 1 climb and almost simultaneously Froome breaks a spoke and ends up 45 seconds down. All the "experts" I have heard commenting on this stage seemed to be of the same opinion that if Froome hadn't made it back into the group by the top of the climb it would have been game over. I watched that stage live and in my opinion it was electrifying and Froome's chase to get back on was epic. Dan Martin attacked on the descent and managed to get over a minute out of Froome so imagine what a concerted effort from AG2R and Bardet would have produced?

I thought Chris' tour was over at that point. Really didn't see him getting back on, it was quite the ride.

meanredspider

There's always the chance that a mechanical or a crash or an illness would end his race. And that he did recover from that particular mechanical goes to show the reserves. The fact that Landa could have won it (like Froome might have the year that Wiggins did) goes to show the resources Sky have in the peleton. I dunno - perhaps Froome should have taken a dump just before a critical climb - instead he broke a spoke.