Tour de France

[VictorCharlie]

Well I get the "Hey go get me a latte" support but I don't really understand during the actual race. I would think you would set the highest sustainable pace for each leg.

[amat]

Well I get the "Hey go get me a latte" support but I don't really understand during the actual race. I would think you would set the highest sustainable pace for each leg.

You can't. It's impossible just to race as hard as you can for all those weeks especially at that altitude. There are guys in the race who don't race to win the overall tournament but to win individual stages, and it's a big deal just like it is for a NASCAR driver to win a race. I know Lance is great climbing the mountains but the stages often have a lot of variety and it's multiple people's job on the team to set a pace that the "protected" rider can keep and also keep him in contention.

[Mikkel_K]

Well I get the "Hey go get me a latte" support but I don't really understand during the actual race. I would think you would set the highest sustainable pace for each leg.

First of all, you have to realize just how much of a difference it makes in cycling whether you are leading a group (ie. being head front in the wind) or just keeping the wheel of a person in front of you. Except for on steep uphill climbs, this really makes all the difference in the world.

It is therefore a prerequisite for any 'captain' hoping to do well in the race to have helpers, willing to exhaust themselves in order to enhance the chances of their teammate. If everybody were just racing as individuals, no one would have any incentive to not just hide themselves in the bunch, saving the energy for later. In other words, the race would most likely get very slow and boring, except for - maybe - the last 15-20 km.

Furthermore, a stage race like this includes, as amat mentioned, a variety of different types of stages, and those varieties appeal to different kinds of cyclists.

For example, Fabian Cancellera is by far the best time trialist in the world at the moment, as he showed winning stage 1, but while those 80 kg of musclemass work to his benefit riding alone on a flat road in the wind (or downhill), the 45kg mountain specialist will beat him on a mountain finish every time. The lightweight climber, on the other hand, will have no chance in the finish on the more flat stages, when the sprinters (eg. four-time stage winner Mark Cavendish) hits the finish line with 75-80 km/hour. Of course, the ones with a chance to win the overall race, are the ones capable of both riding in the mountains, time trials etc.

Anyway, most teams will feature a diverse group of riders in order to give the team a chance to compete in the varuous dimensions of the race. E.g. Team Cervelo has last years winner Carlos Sastre, a light Spaniard who excel (only) in the mountains, and Thor Hushovd, a Norwegian sprinter who is maybe the favorite to take the (also rather prestigious) sprinter's jersey, but who will be severely struggling the moment the riders hit the bigger mountans.

[CGM]

If everybody were just racing as individuals, no one would have any incentive to not just hide themselves in the bunch, saving the energy for later. In other words, the race would most likely get very slow and boring, except for - maybe - the last 15-20 km.

Sounds like a typical 10,000 meter race at the Olympic Games. How many times have we seen them do a slow pace for 9,600 meters, and pick up the pace at the end. That annoys the hell out of me, they may as well just have a 400 meter race.

I'm not clear on how the current team system would any more exciting, you seldom see the top guys stand out in a big push until maybe the end, and often not at all if they don't need to. A guy can win the tour without ever trying real hard to win a stage.

I really admire these guys for their athletic achievement, but really it's kind of boring to watch, maybe the team aspect gives us something to discuss and maybe adds some interest.

As far as the hanging back in the pack thing, maybe you are right, but like I said it in't any more of an issue than with any long distance track event. Some tour events would have guys pushing hard try try and leave the field behind, other events it would be a few weeks of one huge peleton. Maybe there should be more involved in winning the tour than just time. Maybe winning a stage should count for more in the overall standings. Then you would see more action.

[Mikkel_K]

Maybe there should be more involved in winning the tour than just time. Maybe winning a stage should count for more in the overall standings. Then you would see more action.

There used to be time bonuses for winning stages, and this is still a main feature in a number of other stage races. However, this does not necessarily lead to more action, as the riders will still try to optimize the chances of a stage win by 'wasting' as little energy throughout the stage as possible.

I do agree that it should be back though, as no one likes those Armstrong/LeMond types who win the overall race without winning any individual stages

Those interested in learning more about the tour may btw do themselves a favor by tuning in today. After 2 relatively boring weeks, they hit the Swiss Alps today, and while the stage profile isn't *that* enticing, the uphill finish should be interesting. Other than that, the last week certainly looks exciting. I would recomment totally new fans of the sport to tune in next saturday, around 25km from the finish, if only to see one of the most storied climbs in cycling history in Mont Ventoux decide the final outcome of the race.

[CGM]

Maybe there should be more involved in winning the tour than just time. Maybe winning a stage should count for more in the overall standings. Then you would see more action.

There used to be time bonuses for winning stages, and this is still a main feature in a number of other stage races. However, this does not necessarily lead to more action, as the riders will still try to optimize the chances of a stage win by 'wasting' as little energy throughout the stage as possible.

I do agree that it should be back though, as no one likes those Armstrong/LeMond types who win the overall race without winning any individual stages

Those interested in learning more about the tour may btw do themselves a favor by tuning in today. After 2 relatively boring weeks, they hit the Swiss Alps today, and while the stage profile isn't *that* enticing, the uphill finish should be interesting. Other than that, the last week certainly looks exciting. I would recomment totally new fans of the sport to tune in next saturday, around 25km from the finish, if only to see one of the most storied climbs in cycling history in Mont Ventoux decide the final outcome of the race.

Cool, I think we both want more "action" but maybe it's unreasonable to expect in this type of long term event. Anyways, my original point was to counter your remark that an event without teams would lead to less action, more hanging with the pack and conserving energy. I don't see how teams really improve that aspect, if you explained that then I didn't really follow your reasoning. I'm a big fan of individual excellence, I admire guys that can stand above the pack, that's what makles it interesting for me. Anyways, it's a good sport, but it's a different type of tactics, less jaw dropping in your face action, the superiority of a team is not always apparent during the race. MAybe that's just the nature of a multi day event

[CGM]

yeah, you are right Mikkel, these mountain stages are a lot more interesting.