Tour route 2018
Comments
-
The riders dressed in civilian clothes at the route launch always make me laugh...
0 -
-
Romain is a Modernista0
-
Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Romain is a Modernista
Oui.
Can't think of a career/type that dresses like that however :P0 -
I recognize cav and bardet but have to pass on all the others.Half man, Half bike0
-
Simon Yates surely. And Bouhanni's grown his hair a bit so looks differentRidgerider wrote:I recognize cav and bardet but have to pass on all the others.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Reminds me of when I first joined my cycling club. It took bloody ages before I recognised people off their bikes - I was remembering them like "That's John, red Kask helmet, Blue Trek bike..." and so onRidgerider wrote:I recognize cav and bardet but have to pass on all the others.
0 -
L-R who are number 2 and number 5?0
-
Having seen Dumoulin's time trial monstrosity on the main page, I suddenly understand why Prudhomme is so keen to avoid it being on TV for more than absolutely necessary. It's hideous.
Rest of the courser looks like just the thing to get everyone hyped up again before the crushing disappointment of seeing it raced. Do we have a sweepstake on when it gets called the dullest course ever by someone in the stage threads? I'm guessing stage 8 this year.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Richmond Racer 2 wrote:Romain is a Modernista
Oui.
Can't think of a career/type that dresses like that however :P
Every year it reminds me of dress down days on trading floors, where people don't have a clue how to dress and end up just replacing suit trousers with jeans. Cyclists can't only wear their kit or tracksuits ffs, how hard is it to dress like a normal person.
Route looks ok. 8 man teams will make no difference in the grand scheme of thing. I would'nt be surprised to see more conserative racing because of it. Undecided on the bonus thing. If ASO could have a Mario Kart style mytery box on the road with bonus seconds I reckon they'd be all over that.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Belter of a comment on Cycling Weekly article about it...
Battles in the mountains are more entertaining then ITTs, IMHO. But not the ones controled by Sky. Sky tactics should be banned.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Damn those pesky teams wanting to win.iainf72 wrote:Belter of a comment on Cycling Weekly article about it...
Battles in the mountains are more entertaining then ITTs, IMHO. But not the ones controled by Sky. Sky tactics should be banned.0 -
Anyone know when the detailed route is announced. I am specifically interested in the precise route of Stage 18 (ending at Pau) as it looks like it passes close to a friend's house.
Thanks,
Pete0 -
RichN95 wrote:
It's not usually available until Junepeteco wrote:Anyone know when the detailed route is announced. I am specifically interested in the precise route of Stage 18 (ending at Pau) as it looks like it passes close to a friend's house.
Thanks,
Pete
Thanks. I suspected that may be the case.
Pete0 -
BigMat wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Yes, stage 17 looks bananas. 65km including mountains.
ITT on stage 20 (so not a normal TT) has a steep hill in it (21%).
Oh great, will we get a red carpet again? :roll:
You can have a red carpet, but you have to also abide by a minimum bike weight. :roll:
I just really hope it isn't another Sky superteam pull of Froome for a few weeks. Not to diminish his effort, but they need to figure out how to break the riders down somehow when it comes to all the "powermeter data strategy" stuff.
I'm some lowly nobody who rides for fun. Since I've bought a meter though, during a non-training ride you can use that thing like a weapon with some of the knowledge that and the computer gives you.
I'm sure you could devise some routes (or rules or time bonuses) to try to break that trend.
One thing I really really really don't get is the "same time for the group" thing. I get that a peloton crossing a line at 35mph together only takes a blink of an eye..............but is your ace GC contender REALLY only 3 seconds behind the winning sprinter? I'd think if you timed it to the timing chip that's not the case.
I understand it's a practical issue, probably. Or maybe a safety issue. But c'mon. How, mathematically, is it possible that the GC leader doesn't gain or lose a single second over 5 straight stages.
As someone new to watching cycling, I really don't understand that.
Just give me a route that will make me want to watch it more.0 -
burnthesheep wrote:One thing I really really really don't get is the "same time for the group" thing. I get that a peloton crossing a line at 35mph together only takes a blink of an eye..............but is your ace GC contender REALLY only 3 seconds behind the winning sprinter? I'd think if you timed it to the timing chip that's not the case.
I understand it's a practical issue, probably. Or maybe a safety issue. But c'mon. How, mathematically, is it possible that the GC leader doesn't gain or lose a single second over 5 straight stages.
As someone new to watching cycling, I really don't understand that.
Can you imagine the carnage if the time awarded was in relation to where you finished in the peloton? Everyone would want to be at the front and the fight for position would be gladatorial. So it's done for practical reasons.0 -
andyp wrote:burnthesheep wrote:One thing I really really really don't get is the "same time for the group" thing. I get that a peloton crossing a line at 35mph together only takes a blink of an eye..............but is your ace GC contender REALLY only 3 seconds behind the winning sprinter? I'd think if you timed it to the timing chip that's not the case.
I understand it's a practical issue, probably. Or maybe a safety issue. But c'mon. How, mathematically, is it possible that the GC leader doesn't gain or lose a single second over 5 straight stages.
As someone new to watching cycling, I really don't understand that.
Can you imagine the carnage if the time awarded was in relation to where you finished in the peloton? Everyone would want to be at the front and the fight for position would be gladatorial. So it's done for practical reasons.
As I guessed.
There goes that dumb idea.
I have no more ideas. I'd just like to see the GC leader more vulnerable on non mountainous and non-ITT stages. Maybe more and longer ITT stages is the answer.
Apples to bananas, but at 8 hours, even Ironman has larger margins of victory versus the Tour's margin over the course of several weeks.
Just trying to put the margin of victory in perspective. Ironman over 8 hours: several minutes. 86 hours of TdF: 3 riders under 3 minutes back.0 -
burnthesheep wrote:andyp wrote:burnthesheep wrote:One thing I really really really don't get is the "same time for the group" thing. I get that a peloton crossing a line at 35mph together only takes a blink of an eye..............but is your ace GC contender REALLY only 3 seconds behind the winning sprinter? I'd think if you timed it to the timing chip that's not the case.
I understand it's a practical issue, probably. Or maybe a safety issue. But c'mon. How, mathematically, is it possible that the GC leader doesn't gain or lose a single second over 5 straight stages.
As someone new to watching cycling, I really don't understand that.
Can you imagine the carnage if the time awarded was in relation to where you finished in the peloton? Everyone would want to be at the front and the fight for position would be gladatorial. So it's done for practical reasons.
As I guessed.
There goes that dumb idea.
I have no more ideas. I'd just like to see the GC leader more vulnerable on non mountainous and non-ITT stages. Maybe more and longer ITT stages is the answer.
Apples to bananas, but at 8 hours, even Ironman has larger margins of victory versus the Tour's margin over the course of several weeks.
Just trying to put the margin of victory in perspective. Ironman over 8 hours: several minutes. 86 hours of TdF: 3 riders under 3 minutes back.
Running doesn't have nearly such a big aerodynamic advantage from following somebody else as it's much slower, which is why there's not really complaints about heel-suckers. That changes the tactical situation and tends to mean that the strongest can open up gaps more easily - they're having to put out roughly the same energy as the person behind them. Also, a three week competition introduces a longer-term strategical element to the competition that isn't there in an all-out single day event - albeit one-day races such as MSR also tend to be quite close.0 -
if they based times on the times across the line you could add another 30 seconds on to froome's winning margins."Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0
-
dish_dash wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Cobble stage same day as football world cup final.
Aren't y'all boycotting the latter cuz it is Russia?
Yes0 -
can I just note La Course is following stage 10 for 2018, but 118km Duignt - Le Grand Bornand instead. and that appears to be it0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:dish_dash wrote:The riders dressed in civilian clothes at the route launch always make me laugh...
L-R
Tech start up
Broker
School teacher in East London
IT support
Northern cricket fan on a night out
No idea...
I'm going Jarvis Cocker - in particular, reminiscent of when he appeared on the Ali G Show and was told he looked like a kiddie fiddler.0 -
I must admit, there is a part of me that likes the idea of them all being timed to the nearest 1000th/sec like F1, with their absolute times being what counts.burnthesheep wrote:You can have a red carpet, but you have to also abide by a minimum bike weight. :roll:
I just really hope it isn't another Sky superteam pull of Froome for a few weeks. Not to diminish his effort, but they need to figure out how to break the riders down somehow when it comes to all the "powermeter data strategy" stuff.
I'm some lowly nobody who rides for fun. Since I've bought a meter though, during a non-training ride you can use that thing like a weapon with some of the knowledge that and the computer gives you.
I'm sure you could devise some routes (or rules or time bonuses) to try to break that trend.
One thing I really really really don't get is the "same time for the group" thing. I get that a peloton crossing a line at 35mph together only takes a blink of an eye..............but is your ace GC contender REALLY only 3 seconds behind the winning sprinter? I'd think if you timed it to the timing chip that's not the case.
I understand it's a practical issue, probably. Or maybe a safety issue. But c'mon. How, mathematically, is it possible that the GC leader doesn't gain or lose a single second over 5 straight stages.
As someone new to watching cycling, I really don't understand that.
Just give me a route that will make me want to watch it more.
But then theres a (bigger) part of me that sees what utter carnage this could cause and thinks better of it 0 -
Quintana vs Froome
Nibali is to old and will ship 10 minutes on climbs and TTT+ITT
Dumoulin is way overrated, a single tour July peak Froome will destroy him in any terrain: climbs, flat ITT, hilly ITT, MTT, whatever.0 -
October: Cobbles! Yeah!
After stage 9: *surveys list of destroyed GC ambitions * So unless Froome loses a leg it's 5 Tours. Worst route ever.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
