Dumb new TTT rules

ok..i'm tired of hearing about "poor" Simoni...people in RBR knew the
rules..his DS should have known along with his team...

Jim A said:

ok..i'm tired of hearing about "poor" Simoni...people in RBR knew the
rules..his DS should have known along with his team...

yeah, but assuming that they did know and still screwed him makes me
feel even more sorry for him.
heather

Jim A said:

ok..i'm tired of hearing about "poor" Simoni...people in RBR knew the
rules..his DS should have known along with his team...

yeah, but assuming that they did know and still screwed him makes me
feel even more sorry for him.
heather

I did not say poor Simoni, but rather poor Eddy S. I think Simoni should
be [censored] at his DS.

Jim A said:

ok..i'm tired of hearing about "poor" Simoni...people in RBR knew the
rules..his DS should have known along with his team...

pauly..wasn't directed directly at ya...rather all the "poor simoni" that has
been going around so far...that's all

wonder what's out there for him if he's not going to be the leader of Saeco
anymore...

While I'm strongly opposed to the new TT rules, I'm glad they were in place
for this TDF. Phonak had some really bad luck, and at the end of the day,
I'm glad this was neutralized by the limits.

Stan.
"pauly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I had heard about the new rules, but I didn't fully understand how they
would pan out. They suck!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/tour04/?id=stages/stage4#rules

For example:

Old rules vs New rules
------------------------------
Tyler loses 1:07 vs :20
Ullrich loses 1:19 vs :40
Bobby loses 1:47 vs :50
Levi loses 1:53 vs 1:00
Heras loses 2:35 vs 1:20

..then there is what happened to Simoni. He must be more than a little
[censored]. Not-to-menton poor Eddy Seigneur; how is right to set limits on
how much time a team can lose and then enforce the time cut.

Jim A said:

pauly..wasn't directed directly at ya...rather all the "poor simoni" that has
been going around so far...that's all

no worries...

Quoted message said:

wonder what's out there for him if he's not going to be the leader of Saeco
anymore...

Not if that young kid has another good ride in a grand tour I bet...
unless he goes elsewhere...

For Seigneur -- too bad, but that's the way it goes. In the old rules,
he'd be gone, also. Noval also was dropped early, but made the cut.

WRT being glad the rules were in place -- I agree having some rules to
damp the time trial were a positive thing, but these were the
wrong rules. At least they could have used my first suggesting of giving
dropped riders a time relative to their team's for GC purposes --
if you finish 3 seconds after your team, and they are listed as 40 seconds
down, then you get 43 seconds down.

Dan

StanSD said:

While I'm strongly opposed to the new TT rules, I'm glad they were in place
for this TDF. Phonak had some really bad luck, and at the end of the day,
I'm glad this was neutralized by the limits.

Stan.
"pauly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I had heard about the new rules, but I didn't fully understand how they
would pan out. They suck!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/tour04/?id=stages/stage4#rules

For example:

Old rules vs New rules
------------------------------
Tyler loses 1:07 vs :20
Ullrich loses 1:19 vs :40
Bobby loses 1:47 vs :50
Levi loses 1:53 vs 1:00
Heras loses 2:35 vs 1:20

..then there is what happened to Simoni. He must be more than a little
[censored]. Not-to-menton poor Eddy Seigneur; how is right to set limits on
how much time a team can lose and then enforce the time cut.

pauly <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I had heard about the new rules, but I didn't fully understand how they
would pan out. They suck!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/tour04/?id=stages/stage4#rules

For example:

Old rules vs New rules
------------------------------
Tyler loses 1:07 vs :20
Ullrich loses 1:19 vs :40
Bobby loses 1:47 vs :50
Levi loses 1:53 vs 1:00
Heras loses 2:35 vs 1:20

..then there is what happened to Simoni. He must be more than a little
[censored]. Not-to-menton poor Eddy Seigneur;

how is right to set limits on

Quoted message said:

how much time a team can lose and then enforce the time cut.

I love the new TTT rules it is the perfect compromise. Personally I
think there should be no TTT because you might be a great rider but be
stuck with a bad team so you end up being punished twice, first by
having a bad team that can't support you decently during the whole
tour and secondly you are forced to take the time of your fifth rider,
now that is really not fair for the individual who has to go up
against Postal.

Last year a lot of the guys argued that keeping the TTT was a good
idea because it was a thing of beauty and pretty awesome, plus it
added more variety to the tour which I conceded was a very valid
point. The way it is now you get to keep the TTT but not unfairly
reward Lance too much extra time just because he happens to have an
awesome team supporting him. I think these new TTT rules should be
permanent. The new rules make sense and are a lot fairer to the good
riders who have substandard teams supporting them. (they are already
punished enough as it is).

steve

steve said:

I love the new TTT rules it is the perfect compromise.

Perfect? We (Ilan, I, among others) have been giving clear examples of how it is obviously far from
perfect. A 1 second gap to your team and you lose over a minute relative to them?

steve said:

not unfairly reward Lance too much extra time just because he happens to
have an awesome team supporting him.

Well, not overly penalizing CG contenders because their team pulls them
down makes some sense, and this is evidently what the Tour directors were
thinking. OTOH, teams are not assigned at random, or drawn from a hat, so
LA doesn't just "happen to have" an awesome team. As captain, he has a
hand in choosing and training the riders, choreographing that beautiful
paceline, and so on. So one can argue that he deserves to be rewarded for
a good showing in the TTT.

On the other other hand, you could also argue that at root, it is money
that permits keeping the riders of a particular team together over time.
The (relatively) long-term stability of USPS, and the resulting group
discipline, has to play a role in the quality of the performance, just
like a string quartet that has been playing together for 30 years.

Money makes the wheels go around.

AMG

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

While I'm strongly opposed to the new TT rules, I'm glad they were in place
for this TDF. Phonak had some really bad luck, and at the end of the day,
I'm glad this was neutralized by the limits.

They only lost a little over a minute with all the bad luck they had. How
close would they have been otherwise?
--------------
Alex

AMG <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Well, not overly penalizing CG contenders because their team pulls them
down makes some sense, and this is evidently what the Tour directors were
thinking.

good points dumbass, they should take it to the next level and
eliminate the yellow jersey (or make it the consolation prize) and
declare the green jersey winner the overall winner.

Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

steve said:

I love the new TTT rules it is the perfect compromise.

Perfect? We (Ilan, I, among others) have been giving clear examples of how it is obviously far from
perfect. A 1 second gap to your team and you lose over a minute relative to them?

Yeah I tend to agree with you on your point but it is a "team time
trial". They want to encourage as much of the team as possible to end
it together. So I can see why they did it the way they did. You can
send out some rabbits who are very fast for a short while, burn them
out and then let your final five take over but it will cost the
rabbits dearly. There is some logic to it. At least the vast majority
of the contenders will finish with their team (unless accidents happen
but hey they can switch bikes if that happens), and they have made
great strides in making the TTT much more fair.

steve said:

Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

steve said:

I love the new TTT rules it is the perfect compromise.

Perfect? We (Ilan, I, among others) have been giving clear examples of how it is obviously far from
perfect. A 1 second gap to your team and you lose over a minute relative to them?

Yeah I tend to agree with you on your point but it is a "team time
trial". They want to encourage as much of the team as possible to end
it together. So I can see why they did it the way they did.

They were probably thinking along these lines. However, I think it's a pretty
fundamental principle of racing that there should be no reward for waiting on
the wrong side of the finish line.

This problem could have, and should have, been fixed.

Quoted message said:

You can
send out some rabbits who are very fast for a short while, burn them
out and then let your final five take over but it will cost the
rabbits dearly. There is some logic to it. At least the vast majority
of the contenders will finish with their team (unless accidents happen
but hey they can switch bikes if that happens), and they have made
great strides in making the TTT much more fair.