On Apr 16, 12:07 am, "Bret" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 9:48 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Bret" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Anyone know what was up with the Michaelsen bike change late in P-R?
> > > It wasn't clear if he had a mechanical or just wanted a faster bike
> > > (deep section carbon wheels) for the finale. Anyway, he slipped and
> > > fell on his butt trying to do a cross-like bike exchange, then he
> > > promptly crashed the new bike in the first pave corner. If that was a
> > > strategic move, it backfired big time, especially considering the
> > > circumstances.
>
> > The pave' was covered in sand. I'm quite sure that anyone traveling as fast
> > as he was going there would have crashed as hard.
>
> If he was taking that corner faster than the others it was only
> because he was trying to chase back on.
Certainly. What the hell else would it have been? He's an expert rider
hyped to the gills with being near the front and simply made a
judgement error.
> My question, which you didn't
> address, was whether that situation was a tactical blunder or the
> necessary result of a mechancal problem.
How the hell would any of us know what the strategy behind that was?
But as a guess - if he had mechanical problems I would have assumed
that he would have been a great deal further back than he was. That
would imply that this was a tactical change designed to give him a
faster bike in the last 20 km of the race. However, it is possible
that their testing led them to discover that frames may not take that
much pounding and it was a strategic change to make sure that he
didn't have a frame fallure in front of the entire cycling universe.
That's not as far fetched as it would be if he were riding a steel
bike.