Tripleshot Cycling

Since the rest of the cycling world is going to debate it I thought I'd tap the collective experience of the TS forum: should Contador have sat up? For those who haven’t seen it, he attacked on the final climb of today’s stage after Andy Schleck had a chain jump off in the middle of an attack of his own. Would riding steady have been more acceptable then his attack? And is it even possible that, as he seemed to claim in a post-race interview, he didn't see Andy's problem (I'm dubious watching the footage)?

Not sure what the cycling etiquette is on taking advantage of something like that, I do remember a classic tour when Armstrong went down after being caught by a fan and Ullrich sat up until he rejoined. I know that in other sports, like rowing, equipment failure after the first 100 meters or so is deemed tough luck, the race isn’t going to stop. But I had thought in cycling there was an unwritten code due to the effects a bit of bad luck can have on a three week race. Personally, I would have liked to see him try to win without exploiting Andy’s bad luck quite so obviously.

On a separate note, it was funny to see that chain problems can happen to the top cyclists too!

Yeah, interesting day. Ryder's view was that Contador should have gone; "That's bike racing", but he gained on Basso etc by having Andy chasing back with his group. Plus AC would have had to hold back Menchov and Sastre somehow. Those guys are 3rd and 4th on gc, not likely to wait, and are a real threat.

I see it more as a mistake by Schleck, assuming some other mechanical fault doesn't come to light, as his chase on the same bike suggests. Armstrong was brought down by a spectator, Ulrich went into the ditch avoiding somebody I think, not his fault if I recall.

Weird how cyclists can get all bent out of shape about fair play; here I am referencing two of the biggest dopers ever. Frank Schleck was also apparently a customer of a certain doping doc. http://www.cheatorbeat.com/frank-schleck/cycling/1076. AC was implicated in Puerto too.

Before I'm eligible for the eyore avatar, at least this year the performances look human, calculations of power output are terrestrial, Armstrong's going backwards like me in February, and even the French have won five stages. Could the first-ever supervision of the Tour dope testing by WADA be working? THAT's fair play.

watwin wrote:And is it even possible that, as he seemed to claim in a post-race interview, he didn't see Andy's problem (I'm dubious watching the footage)?

Not possible. Schleck had almost come to a complete stop by the time Contador swerved around him and attacked past Vino, who was first to react to Schleck's attack.

andy_schleck: I lost yellow today!sh!t happens but the race is not over yet!!!I be back!

So I don't think Andy's too p.o.'d about the thing. Nic Roche seems pretty peeved at Gadret, though.

sylvan wrote:andy_schleck: I lost yellow today!sh!t happens but the race is not over yet!!!I be back!

So I don't think Andy's too p.o.'d about the thing. Nic Roche seems pretty peeved at Gadret, though.

link?

This is the first Tour I'm following closely, and it's an incident like this that suggests it won't be the last -- not for a long time. It's so awesome to see the race leader in the biggest bike race in the world actually lose his position (and possibly the GC win, if you believe some of the out-of-breath journalists I'm reading) due to a simple mechanical that can happen to any of us as we bust up King George Terrace some Tuesday morning. I experienced great joy seeing his gangly limbs all flapping as he gets his fingers greasy desperately trying to get the chain back on. I can imagine the crampy, awful feeling in his legs from suddenly scrambling off the bike, the steady rhythm of a long climb interrupted, the lactate from his recent attacks locking up his muscles. I can feel his panic as he swears and looks back for help (who knew "FUCK!!" sounds eerily similar in Luxembourgisch?)

My pleasure comes not from sadism, Schadenfreude or a dislike for this particular skinny dude. It's from the ability to relate, emotionally and mentally, to his circumstances; this is something so key to the psychology of the neutral sports fan (well... not entirely neutral as I'm naturally rooting for Mr. I-really-suck-at-interviews-but-rock-at-riding-a-bike Hesjedal). I don't know what it's like to do 40+ km/h for 5 hours, or drink champagne cruising down the Champs-Élysées, but I do know what it's like to drop a chain when I'm trying really hard. In a similar vein, suffering up Hurricane Ridge the other week allows me to relate to the grade, length and challenge of various climbs on the Tour.

For my two bits on the question of whether or not Contador should have hung around, hoping Sanchez and Menchov would follow suit: I see the bikes (and their failures) as part of the rider's performance, unlike spectator interference, random mudslides or officials knocking you off your bike at 60km/h just after the finish line (ask Robbie McEwen about Stage 6). I think Contador & co. were totally sporting to leave Schlecky sputtering in their dust.

In Formula 1 the chassis and engine have a huge impact on how drivers finish (ergo the importance of the manufacturers' points championship in addition to the drivers' contest). To a lesser extent, cycling equipment has a rightful impact on a rider's result. The manufacturers wouldn't have it any other way, because then they wouldn't be able to tout their sponsorship of a particular champion. If bike performance was intended to be incidental to rider results, then Trek or some other massive manufacturer would step in and provide identical bikes to all 200 riders, à la Porsche Supercup or IROC.

A final point on the auto racing analogy: cycle racing is so much more engaging to me than F1 becuase we can relate to mechanical failures (chain drop, flats etc.) in a way that is completely absent when Hamilton, Button etc. head to the pits to get their carbon diffusers and bargeboards replaced.

http://bikechatter.com/main/foruser/296/nicholasroche

Looks like he may have thought better of the comment and deleted it, or been told to...

http://twitter.com/nicholasroche

Lister Farrar wrote:

sylvan wrote:andy_schleck: I lost yellow today!sh!t happens but the race is not over yet!!!I be back!

So I don't think Andy's too p.o.'d about the thing. Nic Roche seems pretty peeved at Gadret, though.

link?

http://twitter.com/andy_schleck

I don't think it's a big deal. Everybody was full gas when Schlecklet dropped the chain, so the race was on and it would have been a bit weird for everybody to hold up and wait, not knowing how long it was going to take for Andy to get going again. It could have been a busted chain or something else requiring a bike change. If they had still been riding as a pack, before Andy attacked, and somebody dropped a chain, The group would have probably soft pedaled 'til it sorted itself out.

Here's tomorrow's stage:



First couple of hours might be the best.

Lister Farrar wrote:Ulrich went into the ditch avoiding somebody I think, not his fault if I recall.

I'll take that back. Ullrich just blew it in 2001. Ullrich clearly had not had a Windsor park cornering session and wasn't aiming properly for the apex!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0y92RZgQjU

Still, I'd like to know how far from the finish and if the race was really hot at the point that riders waited. 'Lot easier to wait if an incident happens an hour or two from the finish, than 2 km from the top of the last climb before a descent to the finish and all hell breaking loose.

Lots of good points on here, its obviously not a clear cut situation either way. Having seen the race footage and the arguments my view is that a) he can't possibly have not seen Schleck or heard about it on the race radio but that b) his decision to attack is more a matter of personal preference. If he wins by less then 40 sec then he'll be remembered as a winner, but not a champion, of this year's tour. I think choosing to wait for a rival who made a mistake (like Ullrich) or had a mechanical problem says "I believe I'm faster then you on your best day and I don't need chance to play a role". So Contador was in no way required to wait on the climb, or sit up on the flat near the finish after Schleck had spent extra energy on his own (maybe the best action for all involved), it was a bike race, but he could have made a statement about himself by doing so.

watwin wrote: but he could have made a statement about himself by doing so.

Well said.

L

Lennard Zinn blames SRAM:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/07/ ... off_130090

I saw that. What I don't get is how the chain derails on the bottom of the small chain ring. Isn't it always coming off the ring there,(ie disengaging) in normal pedalling? He would have to pedal backwards to derail from the bottom, wouldn't he?

One thing he doesn't mention, but his post suggests, is that maybe the big ring caught the chain on the small ring and jammed it up against the chainstay. Maybe he was going for the 11 tooth cog (cross chaining), and chainsuck (as how mtbr's colourfully call it) stopped his pedals. Could ramps and pins on the big ring snag the chain? (I confess to ramp-free chain rings on my bikes...) I still don't know how that lead to the chain coming off even with a chain catcher. Anyone else got a theory? Eric?