Tour Tech

john said:

Hi all

I haven't been able to find Zinn's or anyone else's on line coverage of
this year's tour tech?
Can anyone please tell me where it is?

Thanks, John

Dear John,

I'm afraid that this is the "Tech Talk" for the 2006 TdF:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/tech/

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

there's heaps of 'stuff' articles on

cyclingnews.comcyclingnews.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Dear John,

I'm afraid that this is the "Tech Talk" for the 2006 TdF:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/tech/

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Wow! FLoyd has a stem pointing *up*! Is his the only one in the
ProTour? Why don't other riders do that? Seems like it might save the
weight of the extra steerer length and spacers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dear John,

I'm afraid that this is the "Tech Talk" for the 2006 TdF:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/tech/

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Wow! FLoyd has a stem pointing *up*! Is his the only one in the
ProTour? Why don't other riders do that? Seems like it might save the
weight of the extra steerer length and spacers.

Dear Dianne,

There are some links to detailed sets of pictures of TdF bikes here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/

Page down once, look on the right for "Bikes of the Tour de France"
and TdF bikes:

Caucchioli's Look 595
TdF bikes: Millar's Scott TT proto
TdF bikes: Rogers' Giant TT
Tour eyewear: The latest from BBB, Specialized, Smith & Oakley
New Tour gear: New equipment from Deda, Met & Schwalbe
TdF bikes: Grivko's & Rasmussen's Colnago TTs
TdF bikes: Perez's Pinarello TT
TdF bikes: McEwen's Ridley
Rolf Singenberger interview, part 1: The man behind Floyd's flyer
Rolf Singenberger, part 2
TdF bikes: Garzelli's Bianchi
TdF bikes: Zabel's Colnago
TdF bikes: Valvede's Pinarello
TdF bikes: Popo's Trek
Giro's new superlid

Weight-saving may now be more luck and fashion than advantage in the
Tour. Almost all TdF bikes end up under the minimum weight and then
swap in heavier components as needed.

If weight-saving mattered, we wouldn't see this kind of chain-ring
difference:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/tour06/tech/?id=/photos/2006/tech/features/tour_bikes8/IMG_1006

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2006/tour06/tech/?id=/photos/2006/tech/features/tour_bikes9/IMG_1050

Maybe the heavier chain ring is more aerodynamic than the other, but
it may just have been what was available with 54 teeth, what the rider
liked, and what helped meet the minimum weight.

Carl Fogel

Thanks, Carl

Quoted message said:

john said:

Hi all

I haven't been able to find Zinn's or anyone else's on line coverage of
this year's tour tech?
Can anyone please tell me where it is?

Thanks, John

Dear John,

I'm afraid that this is the "Tech Talk" for the 2006 TdF:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/tech/

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Thanks, Carl

Quoted message said:

john said:

Hi all

I haven't been able to find Zinn's or anyone else's on line coverage of
this year's tour tech?
Can anyone please tell me where it is?

Thanks, John

Dear John,

I'm afraid that this is the "Tech Talk" for the 2006 TdF:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/tech/

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

john said:

Thanks, Carl

Quoted message said:

john said:

Hi all

I haven't been able to find Zinn's or anyone else's on line coverage of
this year's tour tech?
Can anyone please tell me where it is?

Thanks, John

Dear John,

I'm afraid that this is the "Tech Talk" for the 2006 TdF:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/tech/

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Dear John,

The post from 531Aussie leads to somewhat better stuff (more
pictures):

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/

Page down once to "Bikes of the Tour de France," which seems to have
no separate page of its own.

The lack of journalistic interest in the technical details of Tour
bikes is always puzzling. You'd think that there would be page after
page of charts showing gear-teeth, tire brands, spoke-counts, Shimano
versus Campagnolo, brake pads, rims, chains, tire pressures, and so
forth, but instead we end up with newsgroups like RBT seriously
disagreeing about something as basic as how common tubulars are in the
peloton.

A possible explanation is that, despite what we think, the details at
that level don't really make much difference and that it's pretty much
a matter of the engine.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

john said:

Thanks, Carl

Quoted message said:

john wrote:

>Hi all
>
>I haven't been able to find Zinn's or anyone else's on line coverage of
>this year's tour tech?
>Can anyone please tell me where it is?
>
>Thanks, John

Dear John,

I'm afraid that this is the "Tech Talk" for the 2006 TdF:

http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/tech/

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Dear John,

The post from 531Aussie leads to somewhat better stuff (more
pictures):

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/

Page down once to "Bikes of the Tour de France," which seems to have
no separate page of its own.

The lack of journalistic interest in the technical details of Tour
bikes is always puzzling. You'd think that there would be page after
page of charts showing gear-teeth, tire brands, spoke-counts, Shimano
versus Campagnolo, brake pads, rims, chains, tire pressures, and so
forth, but instead we end up with newsgroups like RBT seriously
disagreeing about something as basic as how common tubulars are in the
peloton.

A possible explanation is that, despite what we think, the details at
that level don't really make much difference and that it's pretty much
a matter of the engine.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

The Tour de France is about a race. That's what the journalists should
talk and write about. Not about equipment, that for us geeks.
BTW Landis lost the TdF in todays stage. Fascinating stage. Oeps...

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu

Lou Holtman said:

Quoted message said:

john said:

Thanks, Carl

[email hidden] wrote:

>john wrote:
>
>>Hi all
>>
>>I haven't been able to find Zinn's or anyone else's on line coverage of
>>this year's tour tech?
>>Can anyone please tell me where it is?
>>
>>Thanks, John
>
>Dear John,
>
>I'm afraid that this is the "Tech Talk" for the 2006 TdF:
>
>http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/tech/
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel

Dear John,

The post from 531Aussie leads to somewhat better stuff (more
pictures):

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/

Page down once to "Bikes of the Tour de France," which seems to have
no separate page of its own.

The lack of journalistic interest in the technical details of Tour
bikes is always puzzling. You'd think that there would be page after
page of charts showing gear-teeth, tire brands, spoke-counts, Shimano
versus Campagnolo, brake pads, rims, chains, tire pressures, and so
forth, but instead we end up with newsgroups like RBT seriously
disagreeing about something as basic as how common tubulars are in the
peloton.

A possible explanation is that, despite what we think, the details at
that level don't really make much difference and that it's pretty much
a matter of the engine.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

The Tour de France is about a race. That's what the journalists should
talk and write about. Not about equipment, that for us geeks.
BTW Landis lost the TdF in todays stage. Fascinating stage. Oeps...

Lou

Dear Lou,

Yes, it's techincally a race . . .

Prologue: 70 seconds separates first from 170th place in an 8-9 minute
ride:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10192.0.html

Day 1: first 171 of 176 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10213.0.html

Day 2: first 141 of 175 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10224.0.html

Day 3: 47 of 172 riders finished 5 seconds after winner:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10241.0.html

Day 4: first 147 of 172 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10250.0.html
(Excitingly, Hushovd was relegated!)

Day 5: first 139 of 172 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10259.0.html

Day 6: first 148 of 171 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10271.0.html

Day 7: individual TT! Winner has 61-second lead, next 12 riders are
within 60 seconds of each other.
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10282.0.html

Day 8: Pandemonium! Two riders trail winner by 2:05! The next 166
riders are awarded the same time, 2:15 behind. The only other rider
finishes 3:10 behind the winner.
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10305.0.html

Day 9: Oops, a rest day. Technically, these should be called stages.

The real Day 9: first 84 of 170 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10331.0.html

Day 10: Pandemonium again! The first 7 riders are scattered over 5
minutes, 3 seconds! The next 74 riders are awarded the same finishing
time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10361.0.html

Day 11: Good God! These look like actual race results!
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10372.0.html

Day 12: Back to boredom. The first 4 riders arrive 35 seconds apart.
The next 60 riders are awarded a finishing time 4:25 behind. The next
14 arrive 15 seconds later. The next 55 arive 4 seconds after that:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10398.0.html

Day 13: Embarrassing. The first 5 riders arrive 6:24 apart. The other
155 riders stopped for lunch or something and arrive half an hour
later. The last two straggled in 31:00 after the winner, but everyone
else received the same 29:57 finishing time behind the winner and the
congratulations of the crowd:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10419.0.html

Day 14: The first 3 riders arrive within 3 seconds of each other. The
next 33 riders arrive 4 seconds after them:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10434.0.html

That's the first two weeks of racing. There's more difference in the
number of teeth on the front chain rings.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Lou Holtman said:

Quoted message said:

On 19 Jul 2006 12:58:09 -0700, "john" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Thanks, Carl
>
>
>[email hidden] wrote:
>
>
>>john wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi all
>>>
>>>I haven't been able to find Zinn's or anyone else's on line coverage of
>>>this year's tour tech?
>>>Can anyone please tell me where it is?
>>>
>>>Thanks, John
>>
>>Dear John,
>>
>>I'm afraid that this is the "Tech Talk" for the 2006 TdF:
>>
>>http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/tech/
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carl Fogel

Dear John,

The post from 531Aussie leads to somewhat better stuff (more
pictures):

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/

Page down once to "Bikes of the Tour de France," which seems to have
no separate page of its own.

The lack of journalistic interest in the technical details of Tour
bikes is always puzzling. You'd think that there would be page after
page of charts showing gear-teeth, tire brands, spoke-counts, Shimano
versus Campagnolo, brake pads, rims, chains, tire pressures, and so
forth, but instead we end up with newsgroups like RBT seriously
disagreeing about something as basic as how common tubulars are in the
peloton.

A possible explanation is that, despite what we think, the details at
that level don't really make much difference and that it's pretty much
a matter of the engine.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

The Tour de France is about a race. That's what the journalists should
talk and write about. Not about equipment, that for us geeks.
BTW Landis lost the TdF in todays stage. Fascinating stage. Oeps...

Lou

Dear Lou,

Yes, it's techincally a race . . .

Prologue: 70 seconds separates first from 170th place in an 8-9 minute
ride:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10192.0.html

Day 1: first 171 of 176 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10213.0.html

Day 2: first 141 of 175 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10224.0.html

Day 3: 47 of 172 riders finished 5 seconds after winner:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10241.0.html

Day 4: first 147 of 172 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10250.0.html
(Excitingly, Hushovd was relegated!)

Day 5: first 139 of 172 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10259.0.html

Day 6: first 148 of 171 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10271.0.html

Day 7: individual TT! Winner has 61-second lead, next 12 riders are
within 60 seconds of each other.
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10282.0.html

Day 8: Pandemonium! Two riders trail winner by 2:05! The next 166
riders are awarded the same time, 2:15 behind. The only other rider
finishes 3:10 behind the winner.
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10305.0.html

Day 9: Oops, a rest day. Technically, these should be called stages.

The real Day 9: first 84 of 170 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10331.0.html

Day 10: Pandemonium again! The first 7 riders are scattered over 5
minutes, 3 seconds! The next 74 riders are awarded the same finishing
time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10361.0.html

Day 11: Good God! These look like actual race results!
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10372.0.html

Day 12: Back to boredom. The first 4 riders arrive 35 seconds apart.
The next 60 riders are awarded a finishing time 4:25 behind. The next
14 arrive 15 seconds later. The next 55 arive 4 seconds after that:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10398.0.html

Day 13: Embarrassing. The first 5 riders arrive 6:24 apart. The other
155 riders stopped for lunch or something and arrive half an hour
later. The last two straggled in 31:00 after the winner, but everyone
else received the same 29:57 finishing time behind the winner and the
congratulations of the crowd:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10419.0.html

Day 14: The first 3 riders arrive within 3 seconds of each other. The
next 33 riders arrive 4 seconds after them:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10434.0.html

That's the first two weeks of racing. There's more difference in the
number of teeth on the front chain rings.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

You right Carl, spoke squeezing, helmet discussions, whining about a
sand patch on the road, tubular or clincher are much more interesting
especially when the posters insult each other in discussing these subjects.
I accept that Pro road racing isn't an Amarican thing, just as American
Football isn't here in Europe because that is boring ;-)

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu

email hidden said:

The closer the differences are, the more of a race it is.

Well-said.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then this must have a thriller of a 4 hour, 10 minute race:

Day 1: first 171 of 176 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10213.0.html

(See rest of snipped days for similar mass finishes.)

But viewed without captioned timing, it looks a lot like a four hour
traffic jam.

But with minor commentary it looks like a race.

Quoted message said:

You haven't any hope of telling who's ahead if the sound and captions
are off.

That's what the sound and captions are for. Or visiting the race in person.

Quoted message said:

Nor do you have any hope of telling who's winning if you're actually
standing at the finish line.

Not until they arrive, of course not. That's the same for any long distance
running, cycling, swimming, equestrian, or motor sport.

Quoted message said:

Without radio devices on every chainstay and officials sweating blood
to figure out the bonus details and post them, how on earth could any
fan tell who's "winning" the Tour de France?

If I'm at a strategic point in each stage, basically the finish, I can get
an excellent idea of who is winning the Tour De France.

Quoted message said:

Anyone can keep score at a baseball game or a trials event. Try to
imagine 171 of 176 riders with the same score for the day in the
Scottish Six Days Trial.

And I can keep score of racers in the Tour De France, too.

Quoted message said:

A mass start is one thing. A mass finish nine days out of ten . . .

But that mass isn't together the whole time. I can see that your myopia is
preventing you from understanding and/or appreciating road cycling.

Greg

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:20:27 -0700, "G.T." <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then this must have a thriller of a 4 hour, 10 minute race:

Day 1: first 171 of 176 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10213.0.html

(See rest of snipped days for similar mass finishes.)

But viewed without captioned timing, it looks a lot like a four hour
traffic jam.

But with minor commentary it looks like a race.

Quoted message said:

You haven't any hope of telling who's ahead if the sound and captions
are off.

That's what the sound and captions are for. Or visiting the race in person.

Quoted message said:

Nor do you have any hope of telling who's winning if you're actually
standing at the finish line.

Not until they arrive, of course not. That's the same for any long distance
running, cycling, swimming, equestrian, or motor sport.

Quoted message said:

Without radio devices on every chainstay and officials sweating blood
to figure out the bonus details and post them, how on earth could any
fan tell who's "winning" the Tour de France?

If I'm at a strategic point in each stage, basically the finish, I can get
an excellent idea of who is winning the Tour De France.

Quoted message said:

Anyone can keep score at a baseball game or a trials event. Try to
imagine 171 of 176 riders with the same score for the day in the
Scottish Six Days Trial.

And I can keep score of racers in the Tour De France, too.

Quoted message said:

A mass start is one thing. A mass finish nine days out of ten . . .

But that mass isn't together the whole time. I can see that your myopia is
preventing you from understanding and/or appreciating road cycling.

Greg

Dear Greg,

Er, I rather doubt that you or any other enthusiast can tell who's
winning at "a strategic point" without a commentator telling you.

At the typical finish line, a hundred riders may roll past in less
than ten seconds and all receive the same time. How could you tell who
was winning?

At present, after more than 74 hours of racing, one rider is at
268,795 seconds, another is at 268,844, a third is at 268,685, and a
fourth at 268,848 seconds.

(Takes a while to figure out who's in first place, doesn't it? And the
numbers in that sentence are spread out more, relatively speaking,
than the leaders are at the typical stage finish.)

Right now, 90 calculated seconds separate first and second place in
the Tour, a whopping 0.0335% of the total time--modified, no doubt,
for bonus points, which are invisible to spectators miles away at some
"strategic point".

Failing to distinguish a 0.0335% difference without the help of
commentators and technology is not exactly myopia.

Most stages of the Tour are mass start and mass finish. On 2-3 days,
you can see the riders string out a bit.

One reason for the famous yellow jersey is that otherwise the
spectators wouldn't have the faintest idea who the "leader" was as he
zipped past at 30 mph, usually in the middle of a tight pack of a
hundred riders.

Consider that if the winner was 1% faster than second place,
he'd have a 48-minute lead at the end of a 80-hour Tour.

I'm glad that people enjoy the Tour. I do understand much of the basic
strategy and also understand why things are so close.

But occasionally we should be reminded of the obvious.

Determining the winner of the modern Tour would be impossible without
radio devices on every chainstay, monitoring for the bonus sections,
and spreadsheets to tote all the results up. Peloton tactics and a
field of 150+ riders mean that no one can hope for much of a visible
advantage on 9 stages out of 10.

When an advantage does become visible in something besides replay and
slow motion and calculated numbers, it's either due to a mountain that
destroys the peloton advantage--what most of us hope to watch--and
decides the Tour . . .

Or else due to something embarrassing, such as the peloton trailing a
small group by half an hour, as it did a few days ago, or back in 2001
when most of the "racers" said to hell with racing in a cold rain and
finished 35:54 behind 14 no-name riders who just wanted a hot shower:

http://www.velonews.com/race/tour2001/articles/1163.r.html

Now there was a stage where you could see a difference! In fact, the
officials had to find a rule not to disqualify 90% of the field for
being over the finish-time cut-off.

I'll leave you to enjoy the spectacle (it can be fun) and what the
commentators tell you. Of course, much of the fun on RBT and RBR seems
to involve arguing about how mistaken the commentators are about
what's happening and how everyone else is misunderstanding the race.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

I'm glad that people enjoy the Tour. I do understand much of the basic
strategy and also understand why things are so close.

But occasionally we should be reminded of the obvious.

Carl, it's obvious that you don't appreciate many features
of the modern (roughly, postwar) Tour, and I suspect that
you have seen few bicycle races in person. That's fine.
But it doesn't qualify you to lecture other people about
what they need to appreciate the Tour. Actually, it tends
to disqualify you, rather as if a jazzbo who dislikes
rock were to lecture punkers on the aesthetics of their
medium (or vice versa).

Quoted message said:

Determining the winner of the modern Tour would be impossible without
radio devices on every chainstay, monitoring for the bonus sections,
and spreadsheets to tote all the results up. Peloton tactics and a
field of 150+ riders mean that no one can hope for much of a visible
advantage on 9 stages out of 10.

The radio devices and spreadsheets are not needed to
determine the winner; after all, they did not exist in 1950,
yet the sprints, mountains and bonuses all existed then.
The technological frippery is necessary just to tot the results
up quickly so that we can get them instantly on the Web,
rather than having to wait to buy tomorrow's L'Equipe or
Gazzetta dello Sport - a convenience that I have noticed
you partake in.

Actually, the radio transponders are useless for picking
order in sprint finishes. For that the officials use a
photofinish camera - a very old technology in the film
"strip camera" version, although they're video-based now.
At local amateur bicycle road races, mass sprints are often
picked by eye and checked with a conventional video
camera. It's a lot easier to pick the winner when you're
used to it. Even Phil Liggett, who gets riders' names
wrong half the time, has a good record of calling the
winner of a sprint correctly while watching the live video
feed, because he has so much experience he knows
what to look for.

Many aficionados live for the mountain stages and regard
the sprints as less exciting - but they know that the sprints
themselves are a race within the race. A Tour of only
mountain stages and time trials would lack variety and
many elements of strategy. One cannot make a fine
dinner from either only vegetables or only ice-cream.

In 1949, Dino Buzzati and Ciro Verratti followed the
Giro d'Italia for the Corriere della Sera, for an audience
that would not see the race on TV and hear little of it
on the radio. The race was in almost every way different
from today's Tour, yet in an even greater number of
ways the same. On the last day Verratti's dispatch ended:

"The Giro seemed endless, and yet it is over. ... It was
a difficult Giro d'Italia: it gave us some days of boredom;
other days, it is undeniable, of profound dejection; but
there were also moments of unforgettable emotion;
and even we, who are hardened by professional routine,
experienced hours of elation, almost as great as that
of the fans on the Pordoi, Abetone and Ghisallo. Many
times we cried out for it to end, but now that it has ended,
we're sorry that it's over; now that it's gone, we miss it.
"How many kilometers in tomorrow's stage? There is
no stage tomorrow. A real shame!"

(from Dino Buzzati, "The Giro d'Italia: Coppi vs Bartali at
the 1949 Tour of Italy"😉

email hidden said:

Quoted message said:

I'm glad that people enjoy the Tour. I do understand much of the basic
strategy and also understand why things are so close.

But occasionally we should be reminded of the obvious.

Carl, it's obvious that you don't appreciate many features
of the modern (roughly, postwar) Tour, and I suspect that
you have seen few bicycle races in person. That's fine.
But it doesn't qualify you to lecture other people about
what they need to appreciate the Tour. Actually, it tends
to disqualify you, rather as if a jazzbo who dislikes
rock were to lecture punkers on the aesthetics of their
medium (or vice versa).

Quoted message said:

Determining the winner of the modern Tour would be impossible without
radio devices on every chainstay, monitoring for the bonus sections,
and spreadsheets to tote all the results up. Peloton tactics and a
field of 150+ riders mean that no one can hope for much of a visible
advantage on 9 stages out of 10.

The radio devices and spreadsheets are not needed to
determine the winner; after all, they did not exist in 1950,
yet the sprints, mountains and bonuses all existed then.
The technological frippery is necessary just to tot the results
up quickly so that we can get them instantly on the Web,
rather than having to wait to buy tomorrow's L'Equipe or
Gazzetta dello Sport - a convenience that I have noticed
you partake in.

Actually, the radio transponders are useless for picking
order in sprint finishes. For that the officials use a
photofinish camera - a very old technology in the film
"strip camera" version, although they're video-based now.
At local amateur bicycle road races, mass sprints are often
picked by eye and checked with a conventional video
camera. It's a lot easier to pick the winner when you're
used to it. Even Phil Liggett, who gets riders' names
wrong half the time, has a good record of calling the
winner of a sprint correctly while watching the live video
feed, because he has so much experience he knows
what to look for.

Many aficionados live for the mountain stages and regard
the sprints as less exciting - but they know that the sprints
themselves are a race within the race. A Tour of only
mountain stages and time trials would lack variety and
many elements of strategy. One cannot make a fine
dinner from either only vegetables or only ice-cream.

In 1949, Dino Buzzati and Ciro Verratti followed the
Giro d'Italia for the Corriere della Sera, for an audience
that would not see the race on TV and hear little of it
on the radio. The race was in almost every way different
from today's Tour, yet in an even greater number of
ways the same. On the last day Verratti's dispatch ended:

"The Giro seemed endless, and yet it is over. ... It was
a difficult Giro d'Italia: it gave us some days of boredom;
other days, it is undeniable, of profound dejection; but
there were also moments of unforgettable emotion;
and even we, who are hardened by professional routine,
experienced hours of elation, almost as great as that
of the fans on the Pordoi, Abetone and Ghisallo. Many
times we cried out for it to end, but now that it has ended,
we're sorry that it's over; now that it's gone, we miss it.
"How many kilometers in tomorrow's stage? There is
no stage tomorrow. A real shame!"

(from Dino Buzzati, "The Giro d'Italia: Coppi vs Bartali at
the 1949 Tour of Italy"😉

Dear Ben,

Enjoy the spectacle.

Revel in the details from the television, newspaper, and internet.

But remember that the riders themselves need radios and chalkboards
held up by motorcycle passengers to know what's going on.

For non-competitors, the further away we are from the Tour, the more
we think we know about it.

If you were just standing at the finish line on Day 9, watching half
the Tour flash past in a pack tight enough to receive the same time,
what could you really say was happening without referring to radio,
tv, loudspeakers, or notes?

Day 9: first 84 of 170 riders awarded same finishing time:
http://www.velonews.com/tour2006/results/articles/10331.0.html

Many of us enjoy the Tour, but it's fair to say that a great deal of
what we enjoy is what we're told we're seeing by commentators, not
what we see.

The commentators, of course, are often viciously criticized and
dismissed as incompetent idiots here on RBT and on RBR. Snarling at
the commentators makes some people feel superior. Since the
commentators are paid for their work and ignore newsgroups, I suppose
it's harmless, but I often think that it would be fun to have the
critics try to provide 4 hours of unrehearsed coverage.

Despite the bombast, the boasting, and the keen sense of well-informed
appreciation, few posters would watch even 4 straight hours of the
Tour with the sound turned off, much less 80+ hours. The typical
action consists chiefly of hour after hour of a hundred or more
closely packed bicycles in a rolling traffic jam.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

The typical
action consists chiefly of hour after hour of a hundred or more
closely packed bicycles in a rolling traffic jam.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Well, not this year.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

One reason for the famous yellow jersey is that otherwise the
spectators wouldn't have the faintest idea who the "leader" was as he
zipped past at 30 mph, usually in the middle of a tight pack of a
hundred riders.

Many spectators are drunk, dehydrated, and crazed from
standing in the sun all day. The sober ones also cheer
every racer to roll past.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

One reason for the famous yellow jersey is that otherwise the
spectators wouldn't have the faintest idea who the "leader" was as he
zipped past at 30 mph, usually in the middle of a tight pack of a
hundred riders.

Many spectators are drunk, dehydrated, and crazed from
standing in the sun all day. The sober ones also cheer
every racer to roll past.

Dear Michael,

They'd better pick their spots carefully.

Sober or drunk, a fan will find it hard to cheer (or abuse) every
racer who rolls past in a typical peloton of 50 to 150 riders doing
30+ mph . . .

Which gives an excuse for the following pictures, which should please
anyone who enjoys the Tour:

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10233.15406.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10245.15422.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10265.15476.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10265.15474.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10276.15502.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10313.15572.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10313.15576.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10344.15609.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10366.15640.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10411.15693.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10471.15801.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10491.15845.f.jpg

http://www.velonews.com/images/gallery/10491.15853.f.jpg

http://ghmahoney.org.uk/photography/Photos/Fauna/slides/IMG_1074.jpg

http://www.displague.com/times/2005April/medium/p4150071.jpg

(The yellow jersey is a bit hard to spot in the last two pictures.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>.

Quoted message said:

Despite the bombast, the boasting, and the keen sense of well-informed
appreciation, few posters would watch even 4 straight hours of the
Tour with the sound turned off, much less 80+ hours. The typical
action consists chiefly of hour after hour of a hundred or more
closely packed bicycles in a rolling traffic jam.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

You can say that about any sport I think. You see what you want to see. If
you don't want to see it, it's boring. What about baseball? Are the
outfielders not picking their noses and scratching their crotches 98% of the
time and every pitch takes about 5 minutes with all the fuss around it? It's
so boring that the people in the stadium have to be entertained by that
stupid organ tunes, cheerleaders or whatever. Personally I rather watch a
Tour stage for 4 straight hours than a baseball game dragging itself from
commercial break to commercial break..ehh inning to inning.
But that's me....

Lou