Tour de France 2017 General Thread

Macy0161

Leroy42 wrote: »

Bit much really. You know what you are getting into when you sign up. He could have gone to a different team, but one suspects, based on the budgets of the teams, that he choose higher salary over ambition.

Nothing wrong with that, but don't go complaining about it afterwards.

Another way to put it "I did the job I am paid very handsomely for. I am given every advantage by the team and I willingly signed up to be that man that rides for Froome. We did a great job"

He behaved a lot better on the bike at the Tour than Froome did in 2012 - none of the pantomime crap. Landa did his job in the Tour and acted completely professional, and has now spoken out. Without the theatrics that might've fecked up the Tour for Sky/ Froome, like Froome's nearly did in 2012.

The comparisons to 2012 are also the same is that Landa was stronger than Froome in the mountains, but not as strong in the TT's, but has managed to sell he was actually stronger than his leader overall, the same as Froome did and does about Wiggins' tour.

Leroy42

He did the job he was paid to do. He knew that this was his job when he signed the contract.

I have no idea, but I bet that he was offered other contracts from other teams at the same time. Based on the budgets, these were likely less financially advantageous so he went with Sky. I have no issue with that.

What I have an issue with is him coming out to complain about it after the fact. You weren't at the tour to reach the podium. With Thomas gone you stepped up to the plate and deserve a lot of credit for how well you rode, but enough of this 'I feel shafted' nonsense.

You weren't shafted, you weren't mislead. You did the job (very well) that you are paid to do and freely accepted.

Now that you realise that you sold yourself short in the last contract, use that knowledge to move teams and you are free to ride TdF as you see fit.

dragratchet

Landa (and his agent) are just playing the game here. He knows well he signed up with sky for super-dom duties but now he's moving elsewhere he's setting out his stall as a highly capable ambitious future leader, who'se frustrated playing second fiddle. additionally he's severing ties with sky and showing that he's not going to be like porte still riding for his ex-leader once he goes elsewhere.

CrowdedHouse

It's also possible that Landa benefited from the efforts of the rest of the team. No guarantee he'd be top of the pile at Movistar either

dragratchet

CrowdedHouse wrote: »

It's also possible that Landa benefited from the efforts of the rest of the team. No guarantee he'd be top of the pile at Movistar either

true but he'll have a shot at at least one or maybe two grand tours as leader...which is more than he had at sky.... think of the q at sky for grand tour leadership after froome, Thomas and Kwaitkowski at least

dastardly00

Oh these post-Tour de France criteriums do make me laugh

Macy0161

dragratchet wrote: »

true but he'll have a shot at at least one or maybe two grand tours as leader...which is more than he had at sky.... think of the q at sky for grand tour leadership after froome, Thomas and Kwaitkowski at least

And at Sky it's essentially just the Giro, unless Froome does win the Vuelta this year and then doesn't bother with it again.

1bryan

quids-on that Froome doesn't finish the Vuelta

Cookie_Monster

Leroy42 wrote: »

You weren't shafted, you weren't mislead. You did the job (very well) that you are paid to do and freely accepted.

Maybe be no. But what I can't understand is why Sky, with Froome and utter certainty, didn't push for Landa to get third. Surely the money alone makes it worthwhile? Settling for 4th by 1 second seems kinda stupid imo.

Leroy42

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Maybe be no. But what I can't understand is why Sky, with Froome and utter certainty, didn't push for Landa to get third. Surely the money alone makes it worthwhile? Settling for 4th by 1 second seems kinda stupid imo.

I don't think they, and Landa says this, ever really thought that Bardet would collapse so much in the final TT. Or even that Landa would do so well.

dragratchet

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Maybe be no. But what I can't understand is why Sky, with Froome and utter certainty, didn't push for Landa to get third. Surely the money alone makes it worthwhile? Settling for 4th by 1 second seems kinda stupid imo.

few potential reasons here.

a) the money to be gained from a 3rd place is a drop in the ocean for sky
b) froomebot may not have wanted any other sky podium finishes taking the limelight from him
c) most likely sky's single vision of the no. 1 step blocking any secondary goals for other riders.

mcgratheoin

dragratchet wrote: »

most likely sky's single vision of the no. 1 step blocking any secondary goals for other riders.

Yeah - it's a risk/reward calculation. The reward for riding for Landa at any stage is to get him on the podium, the risk is that they don't win the tour due to not focusing on Froome. I don't think any team would jeopardise yellow to get a second guy into the top 3.

1bryan

dragratchet wrote: »

few potential reasons here.

a) the money to be gained from a 3rd place is a drop in the ocean for sky
b) froomebot may not have wanted any other sky podium finishes taking the limelight from him
c) most likely sky's single vision of the no. 1 step blocking any secondary goals for other riders.

Darth Brailsford is only answerable to his overlords for winning the tour. Doubt they'd care much for anything less/else.

neris

Listening to a podcast with Richard Moore from the tour where hes in a cannondale team car on the Izoard stage and the amount of information and data passed over race radio between team cars and riders is ridiculous. The DS in the car said the teams have apps that can pinpoint their location and give details of distances to key points, gradients etc. Listening to it the race isnt raced on the road its raced in team cars and managed from a drivers seat. Then theres the official race radio which seems to give out too much information to the teams.

Beasty

If a "normal" team does that Sky are probably linked into a team of sports scientists sat at their laptops, analysing data and giving immediate feedback to the team car. And if they're not, they should be. Told Dave about that one a while ago :pac:

Lusk_Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

If a "normal" team does that Sky are probably linked into a team of sports scientists sat at their laptops, analysing data and giving immediate feedback to the team car. And if they're not, they should be. Told Dave about that one a while ago :pac:

They'll soon be changing the name of it to Formula Cycling with that level of instant analysis.

"Ok Chris, rider x has just changed rear wheel to slicks. Please pit now!"

rtmie

Assume radio is for voice comms only. Surely they don't have telemetry from bikes to team car?

That would be the end.

Lumen

In one of the DS interviews (sorry, can't remember which team) the guy said there's often no TV signal in the car and they rely on their eyes (and race radio) to know what's going on. To me that's believable. Mobile technology is unreliable outside of urban areas.

I really don't know what a load of sports scientists would do if they had all the remote telemetry. People are not machines. It's not FTP +/- whatever for X hours. Training is like that, racing isn't. You might know what your sustainable power is when rested, but in the third week of a tour when you've bits of road rash all over, an upset stomach and fans are booing at you, the maths goes out the window.

I suspect all the marginal gains crap that Sky used to go on about was largely about motivating the riders and psyching out the opposition. Sure, having a clean bus, fluffy pillows and a good chef reduces the chance of infections, but telling the riders that it'll make them faster will make them faster, and when an opposition rider has just got up from a crap night's sleep on a terrible mattress in a noisy hotel, and sees the Sky riders stepping off their shiny bus, that rider is going to be on the back foot psychologically and losing before turning a pedal. And then there's the injections.... :pac:

Itziger

Lumen wrote: »

In one of the DS interviews (sorry, can't remember which team) the guy said there's often no TV signal in the car and they rely on their eyes (and race radio) to know what's going on. To me that's believable. Mobile technology is unreliable outside of urban areas.

I really don't know what a load of sports scientists would do if they had all the remote telemetry. People are not machines. It's not FTP +/- whatever for X hours. Training is like that, racing isn't. You might know what your sustainable power is when rested, but in the third week of a tour when you've bits of road rash all over, an upset stomach and fans are booing at you, the maths goes out the window.

I suspect all the marginal gains crap that Sky used to go on about was largely about motivating the riders and psyching out the opposition. Sure, having a clean bus, fluffy pillows and a good chef reduces the chance of infections, but telling the riders that it'll make them faster will make them faster, and when an opposition rider has just got up from a crap night's sleep on a terrible mattress in a noisy hotel, and sees the Sky riders stepping off their shiny bus, that rider is going to be on the back foot psychologically and losing before turning a pedal. And then there's the injections.... :pac:

You were doing fine........

rtmie

A lad I know who coached under age hurling teams would add some daft physical drill into the training sessions for a couple of weeks before a competition. I asked him one day, what is that drill for, how does it improve the hurlers.
He said, it doesn't but I can tell the lads, hand on heart, that no other team in the competition has been doing that so the lads will think they are the strongest guys in the competition! Sounds like the same theory :-)

neris

https://twitter.com/DanMartin86/status/890636043615174656

All My Stars Aligned

neris wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DanMartin86/status/890636043615174656

Just seen that on CN. He's one tough cookie.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

In one of the DS interviews (sorry, can't remember which team) the guy said there's often no TV signal in the car and they rely on their eyes (and race radio) to know what's going on. To me that's believable. Mobile technology is unreliable outside of urban areas.

This came up during the Tour of California this year when Toms Skujiņš crashed the car didn't know until someone tweeted them and someone in the team at the base of the hill got in contact with the car.

BowSideChamp

Lumen wrote: »

I really don't know what a load of sports scientists would do if they had all the remote telemetry. People are not machines. It's not FTP +/- whatever for X hours. Training is like that, racing isn't. You might know what your sustainable power is when rested, but in the third week of a tour when you've bits of road rash all over, an upset stomach and fans are booing at you, the maths goes out the window.

Well apparently Lance Armstrong got Johann rang up Dr. Ferrari on stage 15 of the 2000 tour to ask him if Pantani could sustain the pace. Mathematically.

On stage 15 of the 2000 Tour de France, Armstrong's directeur sportif Johan Bruyneel called Dr. Ferrari on his mobile phone from the team car to get advice. Armstrong related the gist of the call, saying "[Ferrari] can tell you how really fast we're riding, based on VAM - the (average) rate of ascension… yeah, Johan had that conversation. Obviously it wasn't good to let Pantani go, but how fast was he really going? How long could he sustain that? And Ferrari would know the answers, because he is above all, in my opinion, a mathematician. A brilliant mathematician … with a ton of experience."

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2003/interviews/?id=ferrari03

Lumen

I think after a few years of Strava and power meters we all know that VAM as a measure of aerobic stress is bullsh¡t.

dastardly00

BowSideChamp wrote: »

Well apparently Lance Armstrong got Johann rang up Dr. Ferrari on stage 15 of the 2000 tour to ask him if Pantani could sustain the pace. Mathematically.

I wonder if Ferrari replied with something along the lines of 'yes he can sustain the pace because he's loaded up with the same juice that you are'

greenspurs

neris wrote: »

https://twitter.com/DanMartin86/status/890636043615174656

"Chuck Norris has just resigned" :D:D:D Class

greenspurs

neris wrote: »

Listening to a podcast with Richard Moore from the tour where hes in a cannondale team car on the Izoard stage and the amount of information and data passed over race radio between team cars and riders is ridiculous. The DS in the car said the teams have apps that can pinpoint their location and give details of distances to key points, gradients etc. Listening to it the race isnt raced on the road its raced in team cars and managed from a drivers seat. Then theres the official race radio which seems to give out too much information to the teams.

All that type of "telemetry" has just about killed the massive interest there once was in F1.
I hope that cycling isnt heading that way also.
Radios need to be banned now ... Its killing the sports spontaneity on the road ....

MPFGLB

greenspurs wrote: »

All that type of "telemetry" has just about killed the massive interest there once was in F1.
I hope that cycling isnt heading that way also.
Radios need to be banned now ... Its killing the sports spontaneity on the road ....

I agree wholeheartedly ...

Ban radios and power meters and let them race on instinct
Plus I beleive strong teams will be at less of an advantage this way

NeedMoreGears

Lumen wrote: »

I think after a few years of Strava and power meters we all know that VAM as a measure of aerobic stress is bullsh¡t.

Hiya Lumen,

Genuine Question - why is that?

At the speeds I climb things VAM is pretty much directly linked to power (apart from the paltry 20 or 30w I need to keep the bike moving and me upright!)

Ta

NMG