Professional Cycling For the Fans - Team time trial - Which Stage

The team time trial is a highlight of the Tour de France for me. Can somone please tell me which stage is for the team time trial?

Thanks,

It's the highlight of the Tour for you? That's kind of sad.

It's stage four.

The team time trial is a highlight of the Tour de France for me. Can somone please tell me which stage is for the team time trial?

Thanks,

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=118441

Stage 4. Happening on Tuesday. Enjoy, and read the posts.

Koffee

It's the highlight of the Tour for you? That's kind of sad.

It's stage four.


Explain why its sad.

Well, since the Tour de France is supposed to be an individual's race contested by teams, many(most?) people would consider the highlights to be stages in wich individuals show grit and determination to make a difference.

Some examples are: in the mountains when all the "helpers" have been long dropped and the big guns fight/grit it out mano a mano, or when a group attacks and fight to stay away from the charging peloton for the rest of the stage, maybe a time trial where a rider makes up the minute spacing to pass another rider decisively.

In response to "Devil" I said it was a highlight not the only highlight. His poor reading comprehension changed the meaning.

As for as the TTT being a highlight in general here are some additional viewpoints

Armstong said the TTT was a "gift."
http://espn.go.com/oly/tdf2003/s/2003/0709/1578525.html

Laurent Jalabert said the TTT was very important to his team.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sport/2000/tour_de_france/819406.stm

Lemond loved the TTT
http://www.torelli.com/owen/tour2000/owentour2.html

It's the highlight of the Tour for you? That's kind of sad.

It's stage four.



Lol....I agree. Stoopid new rules make it a waste of time.

Lol....I agree. Stoopid new rules make it a waste of time.
Ed gets it.

In response to "Devil" I said it was a highlight not the only highlight. His poor reading comprehension changed the meaning.

As for as the TTT being a highlight in general here are some additional viewpoints

Armstong said the TTT was a "gift."
http://espn.go.com/oly/tdf2003/s/2003/0709/1578525.html

Laurent Jalabert said the TTT was very important to his team.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sport/2000/tour_de_france/819406.stm

Lemond loved the TTT
http://www.torelli.com/owen/tour2000/owentour2.html
Regardless if it's the highlight OF the Tour or simply A highlight, I still think it's a little sad. It now has virtually no bearings on the overall because of the ridiculous rules implemented last year. If they just let the riders ride, it would be far more exciting.

By the way, I only said kind of sad. Your poor reading comprehension completely changed the meaning of what I said. From now on though, let's not clutter the forums with argumentative fulmination. If you have an issue with something I say, feel free to PM me. Have a wonderful day.

It's the highlight of the Tour for you? That's kind of sad.

It's stage four.

Why is it "kind of sad?" Team time trialing is a thing of brutal, sufferring beauty! It is also one of my favorite stages. Then again time trialing is something I just love to do. The performance by Postal Service team in last year's tdf was an incredible feat of athletic beauty.

Why is it "kind of sad?" Team time trialing is a thing of brutal, sufferring beauty! It is also one of my favorite stages. Then again time trialing is something I just love to do. The performance by Postal Service team in last year's tdf was an incredible feat of athletic beauty.
I tend to agree. I'm not discrediting the work and suffering that goes into it, just that it's kind of a waste since last year's rule implementation.

I tend to agree. I'm not discrediting the work and suffering that goes into it, just that it's kind of a waste since last year's rule implementation.

Which rule are you alluding to?

Which rule are you alluding to?

The one where you can only lose a certain amount of time. I don't know all the specifics, but you get ranked according to your finish and can only lose a maximum amount of time. You could suffer and lose 5+ mins and be bumped up and only lose 1min 30 secs.

Basically, you don't have to go full out if you're already behind. Your time loss is predetermined.

I'm sure someone has all the details.

f


edit: from Dailypeloton.com re 2004 rules ('05 the same)

Stage 4: July 5

In 2004, the system will once again be used by which the actual time of the winning team (first five riders) counts for that team, with the team setting the second time, losing a maximum of 0'20", adding 0'10" per team until the 15th team losing a maximum of 2'30", the 16th team 2'35" until a maximum of 3'00" for the 21st and last team.

I really don't get that rule. It seems incredibly stupid. If they want smaller time gaps for the TTT, they could just shorten the ****ing thing.

I guess I missed that rule. I certainly don't like it.

Regardless if it's the highlight OF the Tour or simply A highlight, I still think it's a little sad. It now has virtually no bearings on the overall because of the ridiculous rules implemented last year. If they just let the riders ride, it would be far more exciting.

By the way, I only said kind of sad. Your poor reading comprehension completely changed the meaning of what I said. From now on though, let's not clutter the forums with argumentative fulmination. If you have an issue with something I say, feel free to PM me. Have a wonderful day.

All he asked was when it was...there was no need to ridicule him. I am happy that people are watching and at least he didn't mention Lance in his OP.

Some people just seize the opportunity to be a d*ck

All he asked was when it was...there was no need to ridicule him. I am happy that people are watching and at least he didn't mention Lance in his OP.

Some people just seize the opportunity to be a d*ck
I'm good at that.

Regardless if it's the highlight OF the Tour or simply A highlight, I still think it's a little sad. It now has virtually no bearings on the overall because of the ridiculous rules implemented last year. If they just let the riders ride, it would be far more exciting.

By the way, I only said kind of sad. Your poor reading comprehension completely changed the meaning of what I said. From now on though, let's not clutter the forums with argumentative fulmination. If you have an issue with something I say, feel free to PM me. Have a wonderful day.


Your quote says "a little sad" and "kind of sad." Make up your mind.

Your quote says "a little sad" and "kind of sad." Make up your mind.
They both mean the same thing.

So much for reading comprehension.

[QUOTE=Devil]They both mean the same thing.

So much for reading comprehension.[/QUOTE

Kind - 1 a archaic : NATURE b archaic : FAMILY, LINEAGE
2 archaic : MANNER
3 : fundamental nature or quality : ESSENCE
4 a : a group united by common traits or interests : CATEGORY b : a specific or recognized variety <what kind of car do you drive> c : a doubtful or barely admissible member of a category <a kind of gray>
5 a : goods or commodities as distinguished from money <payment in kind> b : the equivalent of what has been offered or received

definition of little
1 : not big: as a : small in size or extent : TINY <has little feet> b : YOUNG <was too little to remember> c of a plant or animal : small in comparison with related forms -- used in vernacular names d : small in number e : small in condition, distinction, or scope <big business trampling on the little fellow> f : NARROW, MEAN <the pettiness of little minds> g : pleasingly small <a cute little thing> h -- used as an intensive <why, you little devil!>
2 : not much: as a : existing only in a small amount or to a slight degree <has little money> b : short in duration : BRIEF c : existing to an appreciable though not extensive degree or amount -- used with a <had a little money in the bank>
3 : small in importance or interest : TRIVIAL

How do those two definitions mean the same thing?

[QUOTE=Devil]They both mean the same thing.

So much for reading comprehension.[/QUOTE

Kind - 1 a archaic : NATURE b archaic : FAMILY, LINEAGE
2 archaic : MANNER
3 : fundamental nature or quality : ESSENCE
4 a : a group united by common traits or interests : CATEGORY b : a specific or recognized variety <what kind of car do you drive> c : a doubtful or barely admissible member of a category <a kind of gray>
5 a : goods or commodities as distinguished from money <payment in kind> b : the equivalent of what has been offered or received

definition of little
1 : not big: as a : small in size or extent : TINY <has little feet> b : YOUNG <was too little to remember> c of a plant or animal : small in comparison with related forms -- used in vernacular names d : small in number e : small in condition, distinction, or scope <big business trampling on the little fellow> f : NARROW, MEAN <the pettiness of little minds> g : pleasingly small <a cute little thing> h -- used as an intensive <why, you little devil!>
2 : not much: as a : existing only in a small amount or to a slight degree <has little money> b : short in duration : BRIEF c : existing to an appreciable though not extensive degree or amount -- used with a <had a little money in the bank>
3 : small in importance or interest : TRIVIAL

How do those two definitions mean the same thing?
Well now, aren't you the little wordsmith? Nah, actually not. You should've been looking up "kind of" instead of "kind". If you had done so, you would've found the following:


1. S: (adv) rather, kind of, kinda, sort of (to some (great or small) extent) "it was rather cold"; "the party was rather nice"; "the knife is rather dull"; "I rather regret that I cannot attend"; "He's rather good at playing the cello"; "he is kind of shy"

Try again.

Well now, aren't you the little wordsmith? Nah, actually not. You should've been looking up "kind of" instead of "kind". If you had done so, you would've found the following:



Try again.


I will give you credit that was a good answer. Well, I am just having some fun and I hope you are too.

I will be watching stage 4 because I like the TTT. I Hope you enjoy it as well.

I will give you credit that was a good answer. Well, I am just having some fun and I hope you are too.

I will be watching stage 4 because I like the TTT. I Hope you enjoy it as well.
What? I hate you.

Just kidding. Well played, and I will enjoy it.

I love the TTT. I think it's a thing of beauty and I totally respect the teams that prepare for it. When everything goes right and no one falls, and everyone's riding in synch, it just gives me the chills... as in the thrills kind of chills.

I think it could make a grown man cry. ;) :D

On a totally unrelated note, remember to keep the discussions clean and free of the ugliness. God don't like ugly, and neither does Joe... which is why Joe created forum guidelines... ;)

Koffee

I love the TTT. I think it's a thing of beauty and I totally respect the teams that prepare for it. When everything goes right and no one falls, and everyone's riding in synch, it just gives me the chills... as in the thrills kind of chills.

I think it could make a grown man cry. ;) :D

On a totally unrelated note, remember to keep the discussions clean and free of the ugliness. God don't like ugly, and neither does Joe... which is why Joe created forum guidelines... ;)

Koffee

I don't sweat god Koffee, but Joe is another issue! :D

Yeah since the new rule was implemented last year I have less interest in the TTT. The rule was created as a direct result of US Postals success in the TTT (or rather, the lack luster performances for the other teams).

Some may say that it is just another attempt to make the Tour mre difficult for Lance, and some may say that it is a good thing that a TEAM stage isn't allowed to determine the outcome of an Inviduals Tour.

In any case, the TTT is a thing of beauty. It will be fun to watch tomorrow.