2022 PRO Thread
Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team
Look at the snake barrier.... maybe there's actually no route...
Rikulau V9 DB Custom < BMC TM02 < Litespeed T1sl Disc < Giant Propel Advanced SL Disc 1 < Propel Adv < TCR Adv SL Disc < KTM Revelator Sky < CAAD 12 Disc < Domane S Disc < Alize < CAAD 10
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
The whole story is nuts, but the most obvious red flag is the motor with energy regeneration under braking. The physics for that simply don't add up, as there is barely any braking in pro cycling. And even then, you would have to make the system ultra light, and hide it inside a bicycle. There is no way anyone has made a system like that with a performance benefit: If you are going to cheat with motors anyway, it would make more sense to put that extra weight towards more battery capacity.
-
- Posts: 2313
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:39 pm
- Contact:
Immediately following the Groenewegen/Jakobsen crash, I felt like the commisaires were policing it pretty hard, but as time has passed, they seem to have forgotten and now people are weaving back and forth. WVA's move wasn't dramatic, but he was certainly pushing to the side to close that lane, if not to block someone, then to simply force anyone that wanted to come around him to one side... either way, it is a violation, but we probably will continue to see it get worse until there's another big crash.maquisard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 10:27 amAgree - the sanctions are not consistent and only happen if there is a bad outcomeKarvalo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 9:40 amThe problem is the commissaires almost always issue sanctions based on outcomes, not actions. If Ewan or Sagan had crashed, WvA probably gets relegated for the exact same move. Without a crash, the deviation has to be absolutely crazy before they'll bother getting involved.
The major issue with the Groenewegen/Jakobsen crash was that the course was incredibly dangerous. In that instance Groenewegen was a contributor to the crash, however it is perfectly possible that the same crash, or worse could have happened without a clash during a sprint. A course should simply not have the hazards present that caused Jakobsen to be injured in the way he was. It should be possible to come down and not risk death.
The course designers should have faced a civil action from Jakobsen, not Groenewegen.
The course designers should have faced a civil action from Jakobsen, not Groenewegen.
-
- Posts: 3261
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm
100% agreed.maquisard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:18 pmThe major issue with the Groenewegen/Jakobsen crash was that the course was incredibly dangerous. In that instance Groenewegen was a contributor to the crash, however it is perfectly possible that the same crash, or worse could have happened without a clash during a sprint. A course should simply not have the hazards present that caused Jakobsen to be injured in the way he was. It should be possible to come down and not risk death.
The course designers should have faced a civil action from Jakobsen, not Groenewegen.
Jeez that is terrible!micky wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:11 pmValverde ended involved in a crash after a 69 years old driver in a car used the brakes in front of Valverde training group on purpose to make them crash.
The story is a bit blurry, but it seems the man has been arrested and luckily no serious injuries for Valverde and his mates.
I had only heard it was hit & run
Thanks for the update
pastronef wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:48 pm2nd part of the VAyer-Festinaboy doping hoax
https://incyclingveritas.wordpress.com/
I'm reading this as entertainment. It's hard to believe that it's all true but it's a fun tale.
Respectfully but firmly disagree, and have since the incident. I edit to re-emphasize "respectfully," which reflects the respect I have for this site and the posters.BdaGhisallo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:44 pm100% agreed.maquisard wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:18 pmThe major issue with the Groenewegen/Jakobsen crash was that the course was incredibly dangerous. In that instance Groenewegen was a contributor to the crash, however it is perfectly possible that the same crash, or worse could have happened without a clash during a sprint. A course should simply not have the hazards present that caused Jakobsen to be injured in the way he was. It should be possible to come down and not risk death.
The course designers should have faced a civil action from Jakobsen, not Groenewegen.
Unlike yesterday’s finish, where even as a Sagan fan (see avatar) there wasn’t anything out of the ordinary (and even I think it cheeky for Sagan of all riders to complain), Groeenewegen’s sideways move was obvious, egregious, and more than just negligent. That the barriers were suboptimal does not excuse Gruenewagen; at most in a civil suit it would (might) reduce his damages. He bears the legal risk of the effect of the barriers into which he drove Jakobsen.
Adding: as a corollary, I didn't have problems with the Jakobsen comments I read. Indeed I thought them measured, as he did not deny Groenewegen his triumph.
Cannondale Supersixevo 4 (7.05 kg)
Retired: Chapter2, Tarmac SWorks SL6, Orbea, Dogma F8\F10, LOW, Wilier, Ridley Noah, Cervelo R3\R5\S2\Aspero, Time Fluidity, Lapierre Pulsium, Cyfac, Felt, Klein, Cannondale pre-CAAD aluminum
Retired: Chapter2, Tarmac SWorks SL6, Orbea, Dogma F8\F10, LOW, Wilier, Ridley Noah, Cervelo R3\R5\S2\Aspero, Time Fluidity, Lapierre Pulsium, Cyfac, Felt, Klein, Cannondale pre-CAAD aluminum
the barriers and whole finish design (high speed, downhill straight) contributed to Jakobsen's injuries, but haven't caused them in the first place - Groenwegen has. his move was intentional and nothing short of lethal
but when we're talking sprinting, the straight line rule should be abided for a reason - the difference between intentional and unintentional is often thin and blurred. that WVA's sprint is a great example - started his sprint close to the middle of the road, and gradualy moved towards his right in few more or less decisive swings. Sagz had every right to take that route along the barriers, as it was initially clear and open. of course, comparing WVA's move to Groenwegen is plain stupid, but same mechanics apply - by swinging from one side to other they both *wanted* to make overtaking them virtually impossible.
same offence, different exectution, totally different outcome. but the rules were broken nonetheless.
but when we're talking sprinting, the straight line rule should be abided for a reason - the difference between intentional and unintentional is often thin and blurred. that WVA's sprint is a great example - started his sprint close to the middle of the road, and gradualy moved towards his right in few more or less decisive swings. Sagz had every right to take that route along the barriers, as it was initially clear and open. of course, comparing WVA's move to Groenwegen is plain stupid, but same mechanics apply - by swinging from one side to other they both *wanted* to make overtaking them virtually impossible.
same offence, different exectution, totally different outcome. but the rules were broken nonetheless.
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.
Total baller.
-
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:29 pm
- Location: Paris
Cobbles tomorrow. Time for MVdP to show? He's been under the radar so far, unwell?
"We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities." Oscar Wilde
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Remember he's coming off the back of the Giro