cycling tactics

Jenko schreef:

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Maasen was first.

Yep. First Kazakh rider to win a Tour stage. Or was it Merkcx?

Thanks.

--
E. Dronkert

Jenko said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:03:08 -0700, DirtRoadie <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I still remember the escape of Bauer, Chiapucci, Maasen, and Pensec
but I don't recall the results of THAT stage (Well, true, I don't even
recall who won). Anyone?

Maasen was first.

LeMond was 47th.

http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_1984_1993/tdf1990_1.php

Quoted message said:

(snip) The reason most people race, at the amateur
level, is because it's the best way to see the race. Most, don't delude
themselves to think that they can actually win, but have an interest in
racing.

(huh?)

Have you ever tried to watch a race standing on the side of the

Quoted message said:

road? Much better seat, if you're in it. One of the problems of TV
coverage, is that it's damn near impossible to judge the grade or road
conditions with TV cameras. Don't know why, it's the same problem hockey
has. On TV it's a bore, in person it's quite fun. There is of course an
exception, that is RAAM. The excitement of that event could be covered by
TV, but isn't.

I'm sorry but in my bazillion years racing I don't know even one
person who entered bike races just to get a better view of the race.
In fact the harder the race the less you see. At 31 mph it's pretty
much macadam, stems, butcrack and rear wheels. Oh and the occasional
terrified glance at the HRM. If you entered the race to spectate I'm
not sure how you could make it down a tricky descent or the bottom two
turns at Nevada City for instance. However with RAAM though strange
enough a sport as it is, definitely benefits from televised coverage
(as opposed to say hanging out at the side of the road to cheer on the
favorites in Tucumcari or wherever).

I enjoy watching the tactics and gamesmanship of big time bike racing.
It gets pretty complex. Compound that with having to think while
flirting with the ol' AT, taking into account the strengths and
weaknesses of your breakmates, past rivalries/incidents and actually
handle the bike and God help me it gets interesting. Personally I
think everyone in that break was just gassed by the time they hit the
1K kite or thereabouts. No one could drop the others and so no one
thought they could ride away with it, so everyone was looking at each
other. Everyone playing the brinksmanship game. And then as we saw
they all lost. Cool!

-Rick

Simon Brooke said:

If yesterday's breakaway had held it together in the last 7Km, they would
have got first, second, third and fourth. Which is to say, they would all
have got points. But, more to the point, they'd all have got time - not
just time bonuses but real actual time. The man who came in last of the
four would still get more points and more time coming in fourth than he
would coming in in the peloton.

This is, purely and simply, beggar my neighbour. They're all concentrating
so hard on not letting one of the guys they've shared the work with all
day getting the win, that they're prepared to sacrifice it all to McEwan
or Cancellara or even (if God intervenes personally) Tom Boonen.

Sitting up and looking at the other riders isn't
purely spite. It is a device for getting them to
work. It's like a reverse game of chicken, where
they are daring each other to start riding.
The OP doesn't understand this, but you should.

Also, time is hardly ever significant to riders in
a break like yesterday's. It's more important if
one of the riders is in virtual yellow, and that has
to wait until a few more days into the race or a
hilly stage, either of which make the other teams
less likely to chase hard and bring down the gap.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At the amateur level, working and not winning is
putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
lose from a break or lose from the pack.

Bollocks. If you came second or third in four decent flat stage breakaways,
you'd have a very good chance of riding under the Arc de Triomphe in a
dandy yellow top. Mind you, it might not be easy to get into the third or
fourth breakaway, but by that time your DS would have started paying
attention and got your team working for you.

Are you smoking crack? First, in flat stages in the
first week the sprinters' and MJ teams will cut the
break's advantage to near zero by the end. More
importantly, in modern Grand Tours, nobody in a
threatening position gets away in more than one long
break. You can pull a Voeckler once, but not twice
in the same Tour.

The only people I can recall in the last ~8 years who got
into long breaks and became threats for the overall were
Pereiro (and maybe Dessel) last year, and Kivilev (RIP) in
2001. They all did it in one stage's break. Kivilev only
was allowed to gain so much time in the long break to
Pontarlier because he had lost a huge chunk of time the
day before when the entire Cofidis team got caught behind
a split in the echelons. Even so, Bruyneel admitted
he made a mistake by not putting some work in to bring
the gap down.

Ben

Quoted message said:

Quoted post said:

Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
it interesting.

You should write that paper on n-person game theory and cycling.

I'm just thinking back to when I made that plot of
obesity versus D/R vote percentage and Fat Stevie
invented the phrase "Chung Chart" for it. So speaking
of game theory, it seems obvious why _you_ would hold
back and want me to start writing the paper.

Ben

On Jul 11, 6:14 am, "Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
it interesting. It's not like running races, triathlons,
or (god help us) RAAM. If you put some effort into
understanding these tactical motivations, you'll get more
out of watching. If this still isn't making any sense,
take up racing, or read Tim Krabbe's "The Rider."

Quoted message said:

At the amateur level, working and not winning is
putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
lose from a break or lose from the pack.

Quoted message said:

Ben
expert on losing

------------
This is of course is all [censored]. The reason most people race, at the amateur
level, is because it's the best way to see the race. Most, don't delude
themselves to think that they can actually win, but have an interest in
racing. Have you ever tried to watch a race standing on the side of the
road? Much better seat, if you're in it.

At the amateur level, it's the best way to understand
the race, but not the best way to see it.

To clarify my point about "working and not winning is
putting in your best effort, blah blah blah" - if you're
an amateur and you get in a break, you might as well
work unless everybody else is a complete jackass,
because it's more interesting than riding around in a
pack and you might get some experience. Negative racing
for amateurs is silly. The pros don't have this
luxury. They have to be willing to back up a threat
of not-working by not working.

Ben

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Simon Brooke said:

I do. But, in the end, if they aren't going to work, you need to dump 'em,
and you need to dump 'em before you tow them to the line. Messing about
waiting while the peloton gallop up is bad tactics. And if you're playing
for yellow, it's frankly better to tow them to the line than to lose the
breakaway. Of course, if you're not playing for yellow...

I see your point. It has been made before, many times.
We see riders in breaks do it over, and over, and over;
year after year; one, or perhaps more will sit up and
wait for the peloton to catch them. I figure the riders
know the score, and I do not. Occasionally a rider after
as stage will admit to misplaying his position, and when
they do not I figure they did what they meant to do.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>
,
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Jul 11, 6:14 am, "Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling is tactical. For some of us, this is what makes
it interesting. It's not like running races, triathlons,
or (god help us) RAAM. If you put some effort into
understanding these tactical motivations, you'll get more
out of watching. If this still isn't making any sense,
take up racing, or read Tim Krabbe's "The Rider."

Quoted message said:

At the amateur level, working and not winning is
putting in your best effort, blah blah blah. At the
pro level, not winning is not winning, whether you
lose from a break or lose from the pack.

Quoted message said:

Ben
expert on losing

------------
This is of course is all [censored]. The reason most people race, at the amateur
level, is because it's the best way to see the race. Most, don't delude
themselves to think that they can actually win, but have an interest in
racing. Have you ever tried to watch a race standing on the side of the
road? Much better seat, if you're in it.

At the amateur level, it's the best way to understand
the race, but not the best way to see it.

To clarify my point about "working and not winning is
putting in your best effort, blah blah blah" - if you're
an amateur and you get in a break, you might as well
work unless everybody else is a complete jackass,
because it's more interesting than riding around in a
pack and you might get some experience. Negative racing
for amateurs is silly. The pros don't have this
luxury. They have to be willing to back up a threat
of not-working by not working.

Yes, this makes clearer to me something I was talking
around in a recent message to this thread.

--
Michael Press