La Vuelta, Stage 10: Jurançon > Pau 03/09/2019 - 36,2 km *Spoilers*

blazing_saddles

ContrelaMontre wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

Dabber wrote:

Will Lopez get penalised for sitting on Roglic's wheel when he was overtaken?

It did look iffy. Lopez followed every time Roglic moved across the road.

I actually thought Lopez initially made an effort to avoid being in his slipstream but then had to follow him round the corner to take the correct line. But on the finishing straight he stuck to his slipstream like it was a two up TT. His time needs adjusting as he had to be more than 2 minutes in arrears as well

M.R.M. wrote:

Most likely Lopez won't be punished. He should be though. 5 seconds is a sufficient penalty I think.

I disagree with you all.
Initially, he would have had to take the wrong approach and line into and through the corner to avoid sitting in Roglic's slipstream. I don't think slowing right down and deliberately losing time is much of an option.
In the finishing straight he was trying to out sprint the Slovenian, but didn't have the legs.
Only then can he be considered to be drafting, for less than a couple of hundred metres.
It would be extremely harsh, given that even on straight roads, some leeway is usually given before the commie steps in.

r0bh

phreak wrote:

What's the deal with TGH?

He's been ill. He tweeted that on one stage he'd not been able to eat anything before or during

hypster

Great result today. It will be interesting to see who "helps" who at Movistar going forwards!

I just wish I didn't have to listen to that knob Boulting go on about everyone ganging up on Roglic for the next 10 stages.

phreak

r0bh wrote:

phreak wrote:

What's the deal with TGH?

He's been ill. He tweeted that on one stage he'd not been able to eat anything before or during

Fairy snuff.

ContrelaMontre

Blazing Saddles wrote:

ContrelaMontre wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

Dabber wrote:

Will Lopez get penalised for sitting on Roglic's wheel when he was overtaken?

It did look iffy. Lopez followed every time Roglic moved across the road.

I actually thought Lopez initially made an effort to avoid being in his slipstream but then had to follow him round the corner to take the correct line. But on the finishing straight he stuck to his slipstream like it was a two up TT. His time needs adjusting as he had to be more than 2 minutes in arrears as well

M.R.M. wrote:

Most likely Lopez won't be punished. He should be though. 5 seconds is a sufficient penalty I think.

I disagree with you all.
Initially, he would have had to take the wrong approach and line into and through the corner to avoid sitting in Roglic's slipstream. I don't think slowing right down and deliberately losing time is much of an option.
In the finishing straight he was trying to out sprint the Slovenian, but didn't have the legs.
Only then can he be considered to be drafting, for less than a couple of hundred metres.
It would be extremely harsh, given that even on straight roads, some leeway is usually given before the commie steps in.

My point is mainly that if they started two minutes apart Lopez should be more than two minutes in arrears as he clearly was passed by and finished after Roglic.

blazing_saddles

hypster wrote:

Great result today. It will be interesting to see who "helps" who at Movistar going forwards!

I just wish I didn't have to listen to that knob Boulting go on about everyone ganging up on Roglic for the next 10 stages.

Turn the sound off then.
That's what I do when that Knob Kirby goes into full volume hysteria mode at the end of every stage. (well, actually for the last 10kms or more)

Only 5 riders within 4 minutes after today. In modern GC terms, but for the anomaly last season, that's already a very big gap. In reality, I'd say Lopez is the only possible candidate to pass Roglic in the remaining stages.
Movistar will probably implode as usual.

hypster

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Turn the sound off then.
That's what I do when that Knob Kirby goes into full volume hysteria mode at the end of every stage. (well, actually for the last 10kms or more)

Good idea, I'll give it a try.

DeVlaeminck

I get the idea that time trials help find the best all rounder but yet again a TT has not helped make the race a spectacle. Just in terms of entertainment I reckon there is a strong case for scrapping them.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I get the idea that time trials help find the best all rounder but yet again a TT has not helped make the race a spectacle. Just in terms of entertainment I reckon there is a strong case for scrapping them.

The TT in itself doesn't make it a spectacle, but without them everyone just battles for seconds on the mountains. The TT opens up the GC and demands attacking. Just look at the Giro in 2018 where Yates knew he had to attack to gain time on Dumoulin and Froome.

m.r.m.

r0bh wrote:

phreak wrote:

What's the deal with TGH?

He's been ill. He tweeted that on one stage he'd not been able to eat anything before or during

He's probably just not that good. Ineos are probably too much pressure at this stage of his career as well (not the team themselves, but rather external pressure of being in team Ineos). Might make more sense to go to a smaller team for 2-3 years and hunt for stages/KOM and then go back to Ineos for GC ambitions.

Personally, I'm not convinced he is a top tier GC candidate. No shame in that. Wout Poels is having a great career.

RichN95.

M.R.M. wrote:

He's probably just not that good. Ineos are probably too much pressure at this stage of his career as well (not the team themselves, but rather external pressure of being in team Ineos). Might make more sense to go to a smaller team for 2-3 years and hunt for stages/KOM and then go back to Ineos for GC ambitions.

Personally, I'm not convinced he is a top tier GC candidate. No shame in that. Wout Poels is having a great career.

You're assuming he has GC ambitions. He's ridden with Bernal enough to know he's not at that level. He will be wanting to make himself a Poels type - the invaluable mountain domestique who gets some of his own chances outside GC

bobmcstuff

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I get the idea that time trials help find the best all rounder but yet again a TT has not helped make the race a spectacle. Just in terms of entertainment I reckon there is a strong case for scrapping them.

The TT in itself doesn't make it a spectacle, but without them everyone just battles for seconds on the mountains. The TT opens up the GC and demands attacking. Just look at the Giro in 2018 where Yates knew he had to attack to gain time on Dumoulin and Froome.

Agreed. Without it, there would be no incentive for the climbers to do anything but pick seconds off each other.

People demanding their scrapping need to think about the impact that would have on the rest of the race. Law of unintended consequences and all that.

rick_chasey

Have ITV been doing those rest day recaps of the previous week’s racing?

DeVlaeminck

bobmcstuff wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I get the idea that time trials help find the best all rounder but yet again a TT has not helped make the race a spectacle. Just in terms of entertainment I reckon there is a strong case for scrapping them.

The TT in itself doesn't make it a spectacle, but without them everyone just battles for seconds on the mountains. The TT opens up the GC and demands attacking. Just look at the Giro in 2018 where Yates knew he had to attack to gain time on Dumoulin and Froome.

Agreed. Without it, there would be no incentive for the climbers to do anything but pick seconds off each other.

People demanding their scrapping need to think about the impact that would have on the rest of the race. Law of unintended consequences and all that.

Whilst what you both say is a possible outcome it's not what usually happens. A close GC creates more interest and tension. It keeps the race in the balance. It makes the racing less predictable and means the leader has to react to more attacks because more riders are a genuine threat.

Maybe in the 1960s riders were attacking with a realistic chance of making up several minutes - these days those kind of gaps more often than not just mean game over for their hopes. Of course there are exceptions but give me a close GC any day. No doubt Quintana and Lopez will try and attack but this morning the GC is looking a lot more predictble than it would have without that TT - that is itself a bad thing.

dabber

DeVlaeminck wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I get the idea that time trials help find the best all rounder but yet again a TT has not helped make the race a spectacle. Just in terms of entertainment I reckon there is a strong case for scrapping them.

The TT in itself doesn't make it a spectacle, but without them everyone just battles for seconds on the mountains. The TT opens up the GC and demands attacking. Just look at the Giro in 2018 where Yates knew he had to attack to gain time on Dumoulin and Froome.

Agreed. Without it, there would be no incentive for the climbers to do anything but pick seconds off each other.

People demanding their scrapping need to think about the impact that would have on the rest of the race. Law of unintended consequences and all that.

Whilst what you both say is a possible outcome it's not what usually happens. A close GC creates more interest and tension. It keeps the race in the balance. It makes the racing less predictable and means the leader has to react to more attacks because more riders are a genuine threat.

Maybe in the 1960s riders were attacking with a realistic chance of making up several minutes - these days those kind of gaps more often than not just mean game over for their hopes. Of course there are exceptions but give me a close GC any day. No doubt Quintana and Lopez will try and attack but this morning the GC is looking a lot more predictble than it would have without that TT - that is itself a bad thing.

I don't have any problems with the ITTs providing the race isn't overloaded with them but I don't like the TTT at all. Whilst it can sometimes be a spectacle watching a well drilled,fast team in full flight I feel it disadvantages a good GC contender who does not have the luxury of a strong team. If the team is incapable of doing a decent TTT then that GC guy stands to lose too much time over which they can have no personal control.

larkim

Out of the three GT this year, this is the only one which looks like the result of the ITT will be moderately conclusive in terms of the GC, partly down to the short nature of the ITTs in the other Tours. So there's an argument from the good testers' perspective that it has been balanced well over this year.

Was there any definitive answer as to why Pogacar was on his spare bike by the end? Was it just a mechanical, or did he take a small tumble?

Alejandrosdog

Dabber wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I get the idea that time trials help find the best all rounder but yet again a TT has not helped make the race a spectacle. Just in terms of entertainment I reckon there is a strong case for scrapping them.

The TT in itself doesn't make it a spectacle, but without them everyone just battles for seconds on the mountains. The TT opens up the GC and demands attacking. Just look at the Giro in 2018 where Yates knew he had to attack to gain time on Dumoulin and Froome.

Agreed. Without it, there would be no incentive for the climbers to do anything but pick seconds off each other.

People demanding their scrapping need to think about the impact that would have on the rest of the race. Law of unintended consequences and all that.

Whilst what you both say is a possible outcome it's not what usually happens. A close GC creates more interest and tension. It keeps the race in the balance. It makes the racing less predictable and means the leader has to react to more attacks because more riders are a genuine threat.

Maybe in the 1960s riders were attacking with a realistic chance of making up several minutes - these days those kind of gaps more often than not just mean game over for their hopes. Of course there are exceptions but give me a close GC any day. No doubt Quintana and Lopez will try and attack but this morning the GC is looking a lot more predictble than it would have without that TT - that is itself a bad thing.

I don't have any problems with the ITTs providing the race isn't overloaded with them but I don't like the TTT at all. Whilst it can sometimes be a spectacle watching a well drilled,fast team in full flight I feel it disadvantages a good GC contender who does not have the luxury of a strong team. If the team is incapable of doing a decent TTT then that GC guy stands to lose too much time over which they can have no personal control.

The core of the issue is that it is ultimately a team sport; without team strength the likelihood of a GC rider surviving to the end in pole position is unlikely. Added to the mix that not all GC contenders are equal and some of the "contenders" much less equal, the importance of team selection and strength is paramount and goes some way to explain ineos/sky success. Admittedly not every team has a budget to compete at the very highest level, but those teams are also less likely to be able to offer the salary and opportunity for genuine GC contenders.

As it happens the TTT amplifies those differences, rapidly introduces relatively large timegaps and breaks ambitions. However, I'm not overly convinced that every team works on the TTT to the level required to be successful anyway and there is undoubtedly room for improving that prep which costs very little and given the importance to the overall outcome teams with genuine GC aspirations could get better. My personal view is that it detracts from the race.

As a technical exercise though the TTT is interesting, as is the bike tech.

kingstongraham

M.R.M. wrote:

r0bh wrote:

phreak wrote:

What's the deal with TGH?

He's been ill. He tweeted that on one stage he'd not been able to eat anything before or during

He's probably just not that good. Ineos are probably too much pressure at this stage of his career as well (not the team themselves, but rather external pressure of being in team Ineos). Might make more sense to go to a smaller team for 2-3 years and hunt for stages/KOM and then go back to Ineos for GC ambitions.

Personally, I'm not convinced he is a top tier GC candidate. No shame in that. Wout Poels is having a great career.

He definitely isn't as bad a rider as he was in the early stages when he couldn't keep food down. He might not currently be able to do it over a three week GT, but he is better than 20 minutes off the leaders on stage 5.

RichN95.

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Whilst what you both say is a possible outcome it's not what usually happens. A close GC creates more interest and tension. It keeps the race in the balance. It makes the racing less predictable and means the leader has to react to more attacks because more riders are a genuine threat.

Maybe in the 1960s riders were attacking with a realistic chance of making up several minutes - these days those kind of gaps more often than not just mean game over for their hopes. Of course there are exceptions but give me a close GC any day. No doubt Quintana and Lopez will try and attack but this morning the GC is looking a lot more predicable than it would have without that TT - that is itself a bad thing.

A close GC deters risk taking. The best tactic is to wait until the last 1 or 2 kilometres.

The problem is that race designers, particularly at the Tour, don't provide the parcours to encourage attacking. It's difficult in France due to geography to be fair. But with most mountain stages coming down to the last climb, the evolution of the tactic of a strong team riding it as if it were a pace assisted time trial was inevitable.

KnightOfTheLongTights

Dabber wrote:

I don't have any problems with the ITTs providing the race isn't overloaded with them but I don't like the TTT at all. Whilst it can sometimes be a spectacle watching a well drilled,fast team in full flight I feel it disadvantages a good GC contender who does not have the luxury of a strong team. If the team is incapable of doing a decent TTT then that GC guy stands to lose too much time over which they can have no personal control.

This. There has to be an element of 'who is the fastest man on a bike' in a Grand Tour. I think two shortish ITTs, one lumpy, one pan flat, is the right amount. Otherwise it's just 'who is the best on long climbs', which is an odd way to judge the world's best cyclists.

TTT on the other hand leaves too much to chance, holds back too many GC ambitions and favours big-budget teams.

larkim

I'd like to see something more akin to a proper summit finish as an ITT. 100km of a lumpy route with no major climbs, then 20-40km up and over two big mountains, ridden solo. Allows the bigger TT guys to gain time on the flatter sections and then lose it on the climb, and allow the lightweight climbers to show their prowess on a steep long climb. Never going to happen of course. And I'm sure there'll be plenty of good reasons that I've not thought of (though the 100km lumps could be over a 20km loop to keep road closures to a minimum).

gsk82

DeVlaeminck wrote:

No doubt Quintana and Lopez will try and attack but this morning the GC is looking a lot more predictble than it would have without that TT - that is itself a bad thing.

Would that be the case if Lopex hadn't crashed on Sunday and maintained his 40 second gap? If he hadn't crashed, the GC would be looking far more predictable if there was also no TT.

ShutupJens

larkim wrote:

I'd like to see something more akin to a proper summit finish as an ITT. 100km of a lumpy route with no major climbs, then 20-40km up and over two big mountains, ridden solo. Allows the bigger TT guys to gain time on the flatter sections and then lose it on the climb, and allow the lightweight climbers to show their prowess on a steep long climb. Never going to happen of course. And I'm sure there'll be plenty of good reasons that I've not thought of (though the 100km lumps could be over a 20km loop to keep road closures to a minimum).

If you're a domestique that would be a massive PITA

andyp

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

TTT on the other hand leaves too much to chance, holds back too many GC ambitions and favours big-budget teams.

Do they? Jumbo-Visma have a budget approx. half of Ineos, but they put 20 seconds into them in the TTT at the Tour. Some mid to low budget teams, i.e. EF and FDJ, have invested time and effort into preparing for TTTs and have been rewarded for it.

larkim

ShutupJens wrote:

larkim wrote:

I'd like to see something more akin to a proper summit finish as an ITT. 100km of a lumpy route with no major climbs, then 20-40km up and over two big mountains, ridden solo. Allows the bigger TT guys to gain time on the flatter sections and then lose it on the climb, and allow the lightweight climbers to show their prowess on a steep long climb. Never going to happen of course. And I'm sure there'll be plenty of good reasons that I've not thought of (though the 100km lumps could be over a 20km loop to keep road closures to a minimum).

If you're a domestique that would be a massive PITA

I'm not sure I care what the domestiques feel about it!

Alejandrosdog

larkim wrote:

ShutupJens wrote:

larkim wrote:

I'd like to see something more akin to a proper summit finish as an ITT. 100km of a lumpy route with no major climbs, then 20-40km up and over two big mountains, ridden solo. Allows the bigger TT guys to gain time on the flatter sections and then lose it on the climb, and allow the lightweight climbers to show their prowess on a steep long climb. Never going to happen of course. And I'm sure there'll be plenty of good reasons that I've not thought of (though the 100km lumps could be over a 20km loop to keep road closures to a minimum).

If you're a domestique that would be a massive PITA

I'm not sure I care what the domestiques feel about it!

HAHAH yes. Also i want more gravel roads. Preferably in high rainfall mountainous areas