Because drafting benefits at running speeds is relatively small compared to cycling
Because drafting benefits at running speeds is relatively small compared to cycling
Tooth22 wrote:
Because drafting benefits at running speeds is relatively small compared to cycling
Then why does everyone make a big deal about pace setters at track meets & road races? (e.g. "so & so" has a chance to break the record if they have good pace setters...can't runners just go off their watch at a predetermined pace and stick to it?).
Inquiring minds want to know wrote:
Tooth22 wrote:
Because drafting benefits at running speeds is relatively small compared to cycling
Then why does everyone make a big deal about pace setters at track meets & road races? (e.g. "so & so" has a chance to break the record if they have good pace setters...can't runners just go off their watch at a predetermined pace and stick to it?).
"relatively small compared to cycling"
This entire thread is talking about how 8 riders have no chance against 100 riders. Can you imagine this in running: Kipchoge and a few other guys start off fast and then just get rolled down by a bunch of sub-elite guys who had the good sense to stay back
Cycling is different than pretty much any other type of racing. The fact that they race for 21 days, 5+ hours per day, on open roads in all weather makes it grueling and super dangerous - but the mental stress is the most difficult to deal with. All racers cling to these unwritten rules because they know they can't mentally deal with that many hours of attacks, uncertainty, danger, 35 mph flat finishes and stress. All riders cooperate because they know that every rider benefits from these norms at some point in their careers, and mayhem on the road doesn't serve anyone. Everyone agrees that Stage 21 is ceremonial for GC and only at play for the sprinters - it is safer and more manageable that way.
In fact, every stage is effectively shut down with 3k to go to the finish. Beyond that point, if a crash were to happen, you get on your bike and finish, and get the same finish time as the guys that were with you at the time of crash, but stayed upright. You can't win stage honors that way, but it allows guys who are not vying for sprint victory at the line to back off with 3k to go and ride at the back of the field, stay out of the carnage, and rest assured that they won't lose overall time by doing so. Otherwise it would be a melee for everyone to get to the front and out of crash danger during sprint speeds in downtown settings. Racers would crash and risk remounting broken bicycles and try to make it to the line to not lose time. GC contenders don't have to back off with 3k to go, they just do because it makes sense and it is the safe option.
Take a look at the injuries sustained this year in the TDF (broken back, broken patella, broken nose on crash into tree). Bike racing is no joke and there needs to be some way to reduce the stress.
I agree with you BUT if they want people to attack if it 's close on the final stage they need some incentive. One other thing I heard Lance talk about on The Move - the winner only gets $500k - and he said that it's been that way since 1999 at least when he won his 1st one. He then went on to say that the winner splits the $500k between the full team and staff so you don't actually win any prize money for winning the tour. If there was $15m on the line on the final stage I think you would see more attacking.
moanswers wrote:
HMM wrote:
I do think they need to change something to make it more exciting in the final week of racing. Maybe larger time bonuses for winning stages that week?
I don't think time bonus should ever be given. It's time! It makes no sense to be giving away time in a race that is based on time.
HMMM wrote:
I agree with you BUT if they want people to attack if it 's close on the final stage they need some incentive.
One other thing I heard Lance talk about on The Move - the winner only gets $500k - and he said that it's been that way since 1999 at least when he won his 1st one. He then went on to say that the winner splits the $500k between the full team and staff so you don't actually win any prize money for winning the tour.
If there was $15m on the line on the final stage I think you would see more attacking.
moanswers wrote:
I don't think time bonus should ever be given. It's time! It makes no sense to be giving away time in a race that is based on time.
So your theory is that nobody actually wants to win the tour?
Please explain to me how you came to that conclusion based on what I wrote?
Paul Sherwan wrote:
HMMM wrote:
I agree with you BUT if they want people to attack if it 's close on the final stage they need some incentive.
One other thing I heard Lance talk about on The Move - the winner only gets $500k - and he said that it's been that way since 1999 at least when he won his 1st one. He then went on to say that the winner splits the $500k between the full team and staff so you don't actually win any prize money for winning the tour.
If there was $15m on the line on the final stage I think you would see more attacking.
So your theory is that nobody actually wants to win the tour?
HM and more M's wrote:
If there was $15m on the line on the final stage I think you would see more attacking.
Or, race fixing. Lance himself conspired to fix several American races in order to win a big payout. Podium places are frequently bought in the last KMs of a pro race. Race fixing is a huge problem in cycling as soon as there is more than a small amount of money.
OP, the answer to your question is, the route on the last day isn't either hilly enough or a long-enough TT to set up a situation where the typical podium could be re-arranged on the last day. Even then, typically what happens is the podium riders come in together while racers much further down GC win the stage.
Furthermore, the final stage is ceremonial but for the last few KMs. And then there's the subtler problem of the not permitting a break of GC contenders, which, borders on race fixing.