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

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...

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:7b41-
[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!

cyclingnews.comtour04Open ↗
age4#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:7b-
[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!

cyclingnews.comtour04Open ↗
age4#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!

cyclingnews.comtour04Open ↗
age4#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?

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.