Contador's 39 sec Margin After Stage 19
Phil H
Schleck when he diddled with his chain on stage 15.
Phil H
Zeno
Right or wrong, I think that number will dog this particular victory
forever. There will always be a "yes, but..." If CA had taken 2
minutes out of Andy, such talk might have been muted, though Berto
still did what he did. Tainted? I dunno, but chain gate will not be
forgotten.
RicodJour
> 39 seconds is exactly the same amount of time Contador made up on
> Schleck when he diddled with his chain on stage 15.
When Andy was no longer making up time, started loosing it, and then
it was clear AC would win by less than a minute, I just smiled to
myself. I just knew it would end up at exactly that time. There's
karma in action for you.
R
Amit Ghosh
dumbass,
in refernce to the other thread, the winner of a race is the winner -
it doesn't mean they are somehow objectively "the best".
contador will be the winner.
raamman
it's probabally going to hurt SRAM a hell of a lot more than anyone
else for a long time to come- it will be a point of refrence when
discussion of gruppos come up. If... if... if....if his chain did not
come off; I hear the Di2 is very reliable especially in chainring
shifting/ trimming- might even see SRAM marked Di2s next year.
Plano Dude
Dumbass,
SRAM has been making it clear to it's dealers that Schleck has been
using aftermarket derailleur pulleys and cage, which probably caused
chain suck.
SRAM is in between a rock and a hard place. It doesn't want to dog out
it's second place finisher, but wants people to know that he was using
aftermarket derailleur pulleys and cage. They will probably add a
clause to their contracts from now on prohibiting it.
This is not a whole lot different that the situation in Virginia where
three guys in the same team snapped their Madone steerer tubes and
Trek said it was because they were using poorly designed stems that
caused excessive stress points (a comment I have also heard from a non
Trek component designer about said stems).
Betty
> 39 seconds is exactly the same amount of time Contador made up on
> Schleck when he diddled with his chain on stage 15.
Looking on the bright sight Andy is now the youngest victoire virtuelle
on record.
Zeno
Hmm- I'll bet they were using those pulleys with more teeth that are
supposed to reduce friction. Not much of an advantage if your chain
flys off.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:63cb5eb3-e895-41bd...@q16g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> 39 seconds is exactly the same amount of time Contador made up on
> Schleck when he diddled with his chain on stage 15.
>
> Phil H
Life's full of what-ifs, but the thing about what-ifs is, they don't change
just that one little thing you want changed for the better; they change
everything. And introduce you to new opportunities to make choices that
could turn things good or bad.
What if... what if Fabian and Jens and whomever just completely blew a stage
apart, trying to get Andy the victory amidst the chaos? What if Andy didn't
tentatively attack but gave it everything, an all-or-nothing attempt that
would have either shattered himself of Contador... nobody settling for
second, winner takes all, loser is lucky to end up on the podium?
Alberto Contador played the smarter game this year. He rode defensively
*and* strongly. He didn't win because somebody's chain came off, he didn't
win because he was protecting his postion from Menchov. Look at how few
seconds we're talking about here. Andy could have come back after the chain
incident. The adrenalin could have propelled him like it did Lance at Luz
Ardiden (yes, I know, they waited for Lance, but after rejoining the group
he almost immediately attacked out of it... which brings up something
else... you wait for the guy, then he attacks you... is that fair play?).
Why wasn't Contador more dominant this year? Was it because he was playing
it overly cautious? Was it because he and Andy are best buds? Was it because
he's just not in the same shape as last year? Was it because doping controls
have led to a more-level playing field?
In any event, I don't think AC won because of a flaw in his character that
caused him to take advantage of AS's misfortune.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:4ee185a8-c06f-45ff...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 24, 3:17 pm, raamman <raam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 1:35 pm, Zeno <zwarbirdm...@zenoswarbirdvideos.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 24, 11:18 am, Phil H <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 39 seconds is exactly the same amount of time Contador made up on
> > > Schleck when he diddled with his chain on stage 15.
>
> > > Phil H
>
> > Right or wrong, I think that number will dog this particular victory
> > forever. There will always be a "yes, but..." If CA had taken 2
> > minutes out of Andy, such talk might have been muted, though Berto
> > still did what he did. Tainted? I dunno, but chain gate will not be
> > forgotten.
>
> it's probabally going to hurt SRAM a hell of a lot more than anyone
> else for a long time to come- it will be a point of refrence when
> discussion of gruppos come up. If... if... if....if his chain did not
> come off; I hear the Di2 is very reliable especially in chainring
> shifting/ trimming- might even see SRAM marked Di2s next year.
Dumbass,
SRAM has been making it clear to it's dealers that Schleck has been
using aftermarket derailleur pulleys and cage, which probably caused
chain suck.
SRAM is in between a rock and a hard place. It doesn't want to dog out
it's second place finisher, but wants people to know that he was using
aftermarket derailleur pulleys and cage. They will probably add a
clause to their contracts from now on prohibiting it.
This is not a whole lot different that the situation in Virginia where
three guys in the same team snapped their Madone steerer tubes and
Trek said it was because they were using poorly designed stems that
caused excessive stress points (a comment I have also heard from a non
Trek component designer about said stems).
========
Front shifting is not SRAMs forte. Especially when using a SRAM chain. After
Shimano's disastrous STX crankset, which in the most-literal sense "sucked",
they (Shimano) put an enormous amount of engineering into chainring design,
and the results show. Their only recent mis-step was the awful DuraAce
9-speed triple, where the chain constantly try to drop from the middle to
small chainring (Shimano's first attempt at a triple with a 39 tooth middle
chainring).
But for compact and standard cranks, the Shimano Ultegra and DuraAce (and
even '105 for that matter) models simply don't drop chains like their SRAM
cousins sometimes do. And regarding Di2, in my opinion the rear is no big
thing, perhaps even negative, but the front shifting is phenomenal. No
matter how much pressure, you get a clean, quiet, perfectly-centered shift
every time, from any cog position in back.
Having said all that, I don't know the exact nature of Andy Schleck's
mechanical. Was it a chain dropped off the inside, did it happen during a
shift from large to small, did it get stuck in the middle or what?
Victor Kan
wrote:
...
> Having said all that, I don't know the exact nature of Andy Schleck's
> mechanical. Was it a chain dropped off the inside, did it happen during a
> shift from large to small, did it get stuck in the middle or what?
From the side-view video, it looked to me like he started the attack
in a small-small combo and may have tried to shift up on the front,
but threw the chain off to the outside where it got jammed between the
chainring and crank arm.
I think on the velonews Stage 19 highlights, they said they'lll soon
have an interview with a guy from SRAM about what happened in their
"extra" show.
RicodJour
Where did you see the side view video? I've only seen the head on
ones. I looked at the front view a bunch of times to see what his
hands were doing and I only saw his right hand make a shifting
movement. Not sure that it was in fact a shifting movement, but it
looked like it. Post a link if you can find that video.
R
Keith
<Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>What if... what if Fabian and Jens and whomever just completely blew a stage
>apart, trying to get Andy the victory amidst the chaos? What if Andy didn't
>tentatively attack but gave it everything, an all-or-nothing attempt that
>would have either shattered himself of Contador... nobody settling for
>second, winner takes all, loser is lucky to end up on the podium?
Actually without the 1'40" Menchov lost on the Tourmalet he would be
second and dangerously close too...at 21" ! So if AS had given it all,
stopping and attacking 4 or 5 times neither of them would have won the
tour quite possibly...
It's strange, it's Menchov's best ever TdF but we barely saw him,
except on Ax 3 domaines and when he helped AC put time into AS after
his chain drop.
Barring any accidents for AS and AC, Menchov will likely never win the
TdF, but two Vueltas (at least one after Heras was disqualified
though) and one Giro isn't too shabby.
Victor Kan
...
> Where did you see the side view video? I've only seen the head on
> ones. I looked at the front view a bunch of times to see what his
> hands were doing and I only saw his right hand make a shifting
> movement. Not sure that it was in fact a shifting movement, but it
> looked like it. Post a link if you can find that video.
I think I saw it on the Versus coverage (maybe a post-race highlight
replay?), but you can see some of it very briefly on the velonews
stage 15 highlight video, ~3:20 in:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2010-tour-de-france-stage-15
I guess it was a long helicopter shot?
I didn't see Schleck do a front shift before the chain drops either.
I'm assuming he did one because just before the attack, there was a
side shot from the left where the top chain line was at the inner ring
height, and with the rear derailleur pointing down and toward the back
(before the chain dropped and it went horizontal) he looked to be in
small-small. It looked to me like the chain fell off to the ouside (I
could be totally wrong about that), so I assume that would require a
front up shift if he started out in the small ring.
In that video, you can see Schleck using his left hand to shift, but
that may have been only just after the chain dropped and he tried to
fix it by shifting and pedaling.
Victor Kan
> I think on the velonews Stage 19 highlights, they said they'lll soon
> have an interview with a guy from SRAM about what happened in their
> "extra" show.
OK, so they have the interview with the SRAM guy up on their Stage 19
Extra show, about 9 minutes in.
They said Schleck was in a small-small combo, and the angle
"compromised the chain" where the pick up pins (I guess on the big
ring?) pulled the chain off the small ring. He said the chain watcher
didn't come into play, so I guess the chain got jammed between the
rings?
RicodJour
Thanks for posting that. With the pressure Schleck was exerting, if
the chain jammed in the jockey wheels it would have probably wrecked
the derailleur. Anybody see a picture of the derailleur?
R
drmofe
wrote:
> Having said all that, I don't know the exact nature of Andy Schleck's
> mechanical. Was it a chain dropped off the inside, did it happen during a
> shift from large to small, did it get stuck in the middle or what?
Haven't looked at the video frame-by-frame, but it looked like a front
shifter failure, not a rear.
Dumbass
wrote:
> "Phil H" <pholma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:63cb5eb3-e895-41bd...@q16g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 39 seconds is exactly the same amount of time Contador made up on
> > Schleck when he diddled with his chain on stage 15.
>
> > Phil H
>
> Life's full of what-ifs, but the thing about what-ifs is, they don't change
> just that one little thing you want changed for the better; they change
> everything. And introduce you to new opportunities to make choices that
> could turn things good or bad.
>
> What if... what if Fabian and Jens and whomever just completely blew a stage
> apart, trying to get Andy the victory amidst the chaos? What if Andy didn't
> tentatively attack but gave it everything, an all-or-nothing attempt that
> would have either shattered himself of Contador... nobody settling for
> second, winner takes all, loser is lucky to end up on the podium?
>
> Alberto Contador played the smarter game this year. He rode defensively
> *and* strongly. He didn't win because somebody's chain came off, he didn't
> win because he was protecting his postion from Menchov. Look at how few
> seconds we're talking about here. Andy could have come back after the chain
> incident.
Dumbass, the chain incident led to Contador lucking into the optimal
chase group with podium contenders for the downhill and flat to the
line. Andy
had no better option than to chase alone.
Dumbass
I assume they would have used fractions of a second on the TT to
determine who had the yellow jersey.
thirty-six
sounds like "These go to eleven"
dardruba
> On Jul 24, 8:15 pm, Victor Kan<victor....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 7:23 pm, RicodJour<ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Where did you see the side view video? I've only seen the head on
>>> ones. I looked at the front view a bunch of times to see what his
>>> hands were doing and I only saw his right hand make a shifting
>>> movement. Not sure that it was in fact a shifting movement, but it
>>> looked like it. Post a link if you can find that video.
>>
>> I think I saw it on the Versus coverage (maybe a post-race highlight
>> replay?), but you can see some of it very briefly on the velonews
>> stage 15 highlight video, ~3:20 in:
>>
>> http://velonews.competitor.com/2010-tour-de-france-stage-15
Every time I see these shots I'm more convinced that Contador didnt know
of the Schleck mechanical. The two Astanas passed Schleck and his head
then went down to look at his problem.
Contador took off, head down and focussed as we saw closeup in the TT.
He may not have got got a radio message in his ear.
If the Commissairs had wanted him to stop and comply with the so called
protocol then a spurt of their car or a motorbike would have been
sufficient action to enable him to make that personal decision. They
didnt bother, they let him go, that was the commissaires choice which
enabled them to later publicly blame him.
Scott
The thing about unwritten rules is that the race officials aren't the
ones to enforce them. The riders are. Contador knew, he looked right
at him as he went by. And, while he couldn't just let Sanchez and
Menchov ride away, he could've asked them to slow for Schleck, which
he didn't. I'm not saying he should or shouldn't have, I'm just
saying he knew and he didn't.
RicodJour
You misunderstand - it is not an enforceable regulation, it is a Tour
tradition and good sportsmanship.
You also must have been looking at a different video.
R
Horst Schnellinger
> He may not have got got a radio message in his ear.
> If the Commissairs had wanted him to stop and comply with the so called
> protocol then a spurt of their car or a motorbike would have been
> sufficient action to enable him to make that personal decision. They
> didnt bother, they let him go, that was the commissaires choice which
> enabled them to later publicly blame him.
What the hell have the commissaires to do with the so called 'unwritten
rules of fair play'?? Absolutely nothing and they neither have to tell
anyone about such an incident nor blame anyone for attacking while
others have a mechanical.
Phil H
I assume that Contador would still be the winner having the advantage
of following behind Schleck. Assuming their overall times were near
equal as Contador was coming into the last couple of kilometers of the
TT, well, it isn't difficult to put yourself in that position and
respond appropriately (understatement).
Phil H
Phil H
Oh, just a minute, Schleck would have been following Contador so the
roles would be reversed and Schleck (IMO) would be the winner.
Phil H