Lugo - Spain - wielrennen - cycling - radsport - cyclisme -  illustration - sfeer - illustratie peloton  pictured during stage 5 from Viveiro to Lugo - Vuelta Espana 2016 - photo Sabine Jacob/Cor Vos © 2016

Your Friday Daily News Digest

by Mark Zalewski

August 26, 2016

NEWS SUPPORTED BY

In your Friday CyclingTips Daily New Digest: Simon Yates takes first Grand Tour win at Vuelta a España; Bouhanni wins sprint, Chavanel takes TT and lead at Tour du Poitou Charentes; Criticism and apologies as unmarked post takes Kruijswijk out of Vuelta a España; “The bike was what I loved to do the most, but it became my biggest nightmare”: Pauline Ferrand-Prevot uncertain when she will return to cycling; Wisniowski to Team Sky; Giant-Alpecin adds two more to 2017 roster; Katusha signs José Gonçalves; Riders announced for Tour of Britain; War on Cyclists in Sydney escalates; Vuelta a España, stage 6 recap; Vuelta a España, stage 5 on-board highlights; Where it went bad for Sagan; Gears? Who needs gears?; Bradley Wiggins on music that inspires him

Luintra. Ribera Sacra - Spain - wielrennen - cycling - radsport - cyclisme -  Simon Yates (GBR / Team Orica Bike Exchange)  pictured during stage 6 from Monforte de Lemos to Luintra. Ribera Sacra - Vuelta Espana 2016 - photo Sabine Jacob/Cor Vos © 2016

Simon Yates takes first Grand Tour win at Vuelta a España

by Mark Zalewski

Simon Yates (Orica-BikeExchange) continued his season of highs and lows with a solo ride to a stage win in the Vuelta a España. Yates’ season was looking bright until a four-month suspension for an anti-doping infraction that resulted in him missing both the Tour de France and the Rio Olympics. He followed this punch in the gut with his first pro win and today added a Grand Tour win.

“That wasn’t planned, we just wanted to make it a hard race,” said Yates. “[The course had] lots of twists and turns and hard roads. But it managed to come out perfectly in the finish for me.”

Omar Fraile (Dimension Data), Andrey Zeits (Astana), Jan Bakelants (AG2R – La Mondiale), Alberto Losada (Katusha), Laurent Didier (Trek – Segafredo) and Mathias Frank (IAM Cycling) were the main break of the day. Fraile attacked the break at the start of the Alto Alenza KOM with the peloton closing in. He crested the KOM with a minute on the rest of the break and three minutes on the peloton. The descent proved quite technical with Losada going off the road at one point and dropping out of the break. Back in the peloton the speed was increased by Tinkoff, Orica-BikeExchange and Movistar.

With just under 20km to go Frank, Zeits and Bakelants caught up to Fraile near the top of the KOM with one minute back to the peloton. Immediately, Frank attacked the group to go for the points and in hopes to drop down the other side with a winning gap, while the pace increase dropped Fraile. At 10km remaining, Frank held a 30 second lead over Zeits and Bakelants, and a minute on the peloton, with Movistar doing all the work to put pressure on John Atapuma (BMC) in the red jersey. The chasers were eventually caught at 5km to go. That resulted in a counter-attack from Daniel Moreno (Movistar) and Simon Yates (Orica-BikeExchange), followed by Ben Hermans (BMC). Yates soon pulled away from Moreno and caught up to Frank, quickly passing him to go it alone.

Under the flamme rouge more riders attacked out of the peloton, but it was to be only for minor places, with Yates maintaining his lead all the way to the line. Luis Leon Sanchez (Astana) led the chase group in for second, while Atapuma came in close behind with the main group to hold his jersey. The win put Yates into the top-ten overall.

Stage 6: Monforte de Lemos > Luintra. Ribera Sacra - Stage Result

Thursday 25th August 2016

1. gb
YATES Simon
ORICA-BikeExchange
04:05:00
2. es
SANCHEZ Luis Leon
Astana Pro Team
0:20
3. it
FELLINE Fabio
Trek - Segafredo
0:22

Today’s feature image comes from the fifth stage of the Vuelta a España.

  • James_Casper

    Okay time to tee off:

    1. Kruijswijk should sue the Vuleta.
    2. Rest of the peloton should do a sit down protest.

    3. Michael Gratton (and everyone else having a whinge) put a helmet on. You know the rules. Everyone has been complaining long and hard about the increase in fines. You would’ve saved yourself $319 if you’d bothered. Chances are you wouldn’t caught the attention of the cops and been pinged for the other 2 offenses.

    Sick hearing the terms ‘War’, and ‘it’s us against them’.

    You want to ride a bike on the roads? Abide by the laws. Don’t agree with the laws? Well, the argument you make would carry a lot more weight if you weren’t a knob and disregarded the laws in the first place.

    • winkybiker

      Why not make the penalty for running a red light 10 years in prison? That would make those scofflaw cyclists pay attention. Why not 10 years for not having a bell? Don’t like it? Obey the law. While we’re at it, let’s up the penalties for truly dangerous behaviour. On a cell phone? – crush the car. Break a speed limit? Lifetime disqualification from driving. Passing too close? 20 years in jail. Why don’t we do this? Surely it would ensure compliance.

      • James_Casper

        Good to see you’ve missed my point.

        I’ll spell it out for you:

        Don’t complain about the size of fines AFTER you’ve deliberately gone and broken a law.

        You just come across as a whinging twat.

        Abide by the laws, BUT argue that the increase in fines is too much.

        You won’t come across as such a whinging twat.

        Understood?

        • Dave

          People seem to forget these days that part of trying to change a law by way of civil disobedience is accepting the sanction and using the opportunity to speak against the law, not to whinge about the level of the sanction.

        • winkybiker

          I’ve not deliberately broken the law. I’m arguing that the fines are too high and do little if anything towards their stated purpose. Understood? (Maybe I’m too subtle for you). The real issue here is why the fines are so high, not that people are whinging twats. It seems that the laws are designed to remove cyclists from the road, as there are so many other things that could be done to increase cyclists’ safety if that is what was ever intended. These fines do approximately zero to increase cyclist’s safety. There are coherent arguments that they actually place cyclists at risk, but I don’t have the time to lead you through those. I see plenty of discussion below that you may be able to follow if you ave someone to explain it too you carefully. Understood?

          I grew up in New South Wales. I’ll never be back. The legitimized aggression from motorists towards cyclists is terrifying.

          • Chris

            Too late – he’s already told you who are you are and what you think. You must be a whinging twat, I guess. Understood? Me neither…

            • James_Casper

              Agree 100%.

              I don’t think you understand.

              Please enlightened me as to what I’ve told winkybiker what he/she is? Show me where I’ve told them what they think.

              In my two comments I said Michael Gratton comes across as a whinging twat – the second of my comments was the ‘simplified’ version – it still referred to him.

              • winkybiker

                Fair enough. My response had nothing to do with Michael Gratton, whom I will agree does indeed come across as a whingeing twat.

                • James_Casper

                  No problems. I also agree the fines are ridiculous. Just need a ‘firmer’ foundation from which to voice our argument. ?

      • donncha

        And don’t bother complaining about getting fined when you’ve drawn attention to yourself by not wearing a helmet (which has been the law for the last 20 years)

    • Superpilot

      Although your approach is a bit aggressive for my taste, I agree follow the law and you won’t get fined. It is the same to me about people who complain about getting a traffic speeding ticket, and that it is a tax. Don’t break the speed limit and you don’t pay a tax. Simples.

      What astounds me is that the State government is at odds with the local mayor, and presumably mayors office.

      Secondly, if the minister for roads wished to reduce cyclist injuries, he might like to look at the route cause of those injuries. I’m not sure of the exact statistics, but if it is like every other city in the world, the majority of the cycling injuries sustained are from accidents involving cars, not that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet, with a bike other than a fixie so it has brakes (what a fear mongering mess that is) and with a dingaling.

      A helmet may (or may not) assist with head injuries, but it sure the hell isn’t going to prevent a broken arm, leg, pelvis, collarbone, nose or neck from having an accident with a car. So his reasoning is disingenuous at best, and victim blaming at worst. Which I am sure has been said many, many, many times already.

      The only way to sort out cycling injuries in those stats is to sort out the collision course between cyclists and cars. Education (and empathy!) on both sides of the fence (yes riders can very much improve as well!), facilities to separate (even painted lanes better than nothing). He is presumably supposed to understand roads and their users, but clearly is only interested in cars. Perhaps there is still a large motorist/motor industry lobby in Australia that is not immediately clear?

      Cyclists aren’t going to go anywhere, in fact globally riding in cities is on the rise, so they better pull their heads in and start to deal with it rather than tinkering at the edges!

      • James_Casper

        Well written. Enjoyed reading your comments.

        And that’s the type of dialogue cyclists need to be having.

        Your points carry a lot more weight than a disgruntled rider who’s a little lighter in the pockets.

        Thanks for writing that.

      • Andy B

        As someone who has hit the road head first at 40km/h and cracked a helmet in the process.. and came away from it with no head injuries I would say you are an idiot if you don’t wear one.

        • JBS

          +1 on all counts (including the speed of the crash).

        • Superpilot

          Sorry to hear of your accident, but I make no apology for putting in both sides of that coin. I was hoping to show how trivial it is to have a helmet fine (as well as prevent any kind of helmet debate in the comments section!) as that is irrelevant to the main point of the helmet/brake/bell fines (HBB fines?) being sold as the solution to cyclist injuries. Helmets, Bells and Brakes are not at all causative in (presumably) the majority of cycling accidents, as it is usually either rider or driver error leading to the collision in the first place. The second rank of injuries is probably solo injuries caused by rider error, of which none of the three will prevent from occuring. They are merely symptomatic and not preventative band aids to a wider problem.

          • Andy B

            they aren’t going to stop accidents I agree.. but they can help reduce the impact and result of the accidents
            It seems crazy to be fined large sums for not having these items.. unfortunately if that approach works and it saves someone’s head.. even just one.. then it works
            Without wrapping us in cotton wool they have to at least be seen doing something for safety

            My view on wearing a helmet is one of personal experience, I don’t need a law to tell me its a smart choice
            But unfortunately some people do..

            • Superpilot

              Again, that is debatable, you get into civil liberties etc, which can get heated, so lets not go there. Don’t jump on me, I went down at 50k and always wear one also. The point is not whether you should wear a helmet, it is that wearing a helmet is the law, so to prevent a fine you should wear one. But before that the law doesn’t make sense because the minister is suggesting wearing a helmet will prevent injuries. However the lack of a helmet isn’t causing the injury, the majority of accidents are caused by collisions with vehicles. So to prevent the majority of injuries, you want to stop bikes and cars hitting each other in the first place, yeah?

              • Chris

                That’s exactly what the massive fines are designed to do – if there are no cyclists, they can’t have collisions with cars. Fixed.

                • Rodrigo Diaz

                  If there were no cars, there’d be no collisions with bikes either, would they?

                  So I modestly propose a fine of $150 for every km above the speed limit. And immediate vehicle seizure for distracted driving or running a red light. Fixed! Bonus – better revenue generation, a seized car way more valuable than a bike.

      • Geoff

        Well written. While I am not in favour of mandatory helmet laws, I believe many cyclists benefit from a helmet, and would never get on a bike without one (I have smashed a helmet in a collision which saw me needing plastic surgery for facial injuries, but in which I sustained no head injuries, probably due to my helmet). I would never commute without a bell – it’s often the only way to let pedestrians know you are coming on a shared path. As for the brakes thing, while some riders may be able to stop a fixie without brakes, not everybody can, or is always guaranteed to be able to – while some may disagree with me, anyone who thinks they can always stop a fixie safely without brakes is probably delusional.
        As to whether the fines are out of proportion: breaking the law is not a way to challenge the fines. There are better avenues to do that.

        More seriously – I think you are right about the motorist/motor industry lobby. I also think that Australians, in general, have not yet understood that in cities, cars detract from the liveability of the environment, and actually make our cities less pleasant. The penny has not dropped yet that cars are not a form of mass transit. Another guilty party in this is represented by companies like Transurban who build toll roads – they want people to drive. Yet another problem is with novated leasing of cars – people are forced to rack up mileage in order to justify their tax dodge, and thus they drive to work, even if other methods of transport make more sense.

        • Superpilot

          Totally understand different points of view. As an aside to the above and to your last paragraph, I’m not in any way anti-car. I love cars and motorsport in fact, and I drive as well. My opinion with this is that the economy has a huge sunk cost in maintaining vehicles and vehicle infrastructure.

          People have spent a lot of money on (a liability that consumes money) something that they feel identifies with them and projects to society their preferred self image. Much like bikes do for many people. Therefore, because they feel this way about their vehicle, they feel they have more implicit right than someone they see as lower on the social ranking than themselves, whether that be someone diving a rusty old tank, or riding a bike. “Compared to my SUV they must cede to my projected superiority, surely!”.

          As noted, people are switching onto active and public transport in their thousands around the world, but it will be very slow to convert millions and two things are key.

          The alternative must cost less or be more convenient (people are willing to pay for perceived convenience).

          That means measures such as increasing the cost of driving through tolling to get into cities, cost of parking or removing parking spaces, or improving the convenience or lowering the cost of transport alternatives. I am not suggesting any of those be brought in, just that they are some of the methods available.

          You are never going to see the political will to go against the sunk infrastructure and tax revenue generated by the motoring industry. Also you are never going to see Wilbur and Mildred from number 5 down the road on a bus or riding a bike until it saves them money or takes them less time. Getting wet on a rainy day at the bus stop or on the bike is a bridge too far for just about everyone I know.

          Putting those measures in place artificially increases the cost of living. That might be fine for many of us to endure because we love to ride or public transport does save us some money, but it is not the same for everyone. We have disposable income to spend on a hobby/sport, while many do not.

          The increased cost of living will need to be recouped somewhere, leading to higher prices needed to justify higher wages across that economy. In my opinion, no matter how much advocates want to turn every city into Copenhagen (yawn), it won’t occur until private vehicle ownership becomes too expensive. It will have to happen organically, or may not happen at all.

          There will probably be an established alternative (my guess is hydrogen self drivers as the supply can be kept scarce) so private vehicles may always be around.

          Therefore, it comes down to addressing today the real issue of reducing the potential for accidents between vehicles and bicycles (i.e. the riders and drivers) as cars aren’t going anywhere anytime soon either.

          It amazes me how much the diminutive assembly of a human and a bicycle can be feared to the point of anger by someone in a metal cage.

      • Arfy

        If I didn’t believe politicians are political angels sent to protect humanity from corporate greed, then I’d probably imagine their interests were somewhat in line with the major Australian oil & gas companies. Because in that imaginative nightmare there would be a synergy between the performance of the ASX, the Finance sector, and O&G, and it would be in all of our interest to ensure we create a culture of burning as much oil as possible to fuel the economy. But of course that’s not the reality, our political angels are only there to protect us all from self-harm.

    • MushieG

      I agree with you. Also by not having a helmet and brake he is asking for trouble.

      It is exactly the thing that the police say they are trying to prevent, so he really has no arguement at all.

    • Laurens

      Yeah, ‘my fixed gear is like a break’, really strong argument.

  • Don’t know the context but i enjoyed the wiggo video. I hope he would also.

  • Nitro

    Not sure which is more impressive, the Superman demo or getting back on the pedals – or the look on the scooter rider’s face as he goes past…

    I’m assuming that she managed to take the photo – while riding no handed – without stacking the scooter into the kerb !

    • Superpilot

      It’s very impressive! Timing to get his feet back in was amazing. Given that there is a chase car filming it all, and one of the roadies appears to be having kittens bobbing about on the front, I think even the scooter rider was in on it.

  • Gavin Adkins

    Pretty depressing line up this morning: Kruijswijk out of the Vuelta because of incompetent race organisers, Ferrand-Prevot’s future in the sport in doubt and Bouhanni wins sprint… Good news about Chris Hamilton though.

  • Mark Blackwell

    Sagan video is great… guess it wasn’t just bad luck after all! Easy mistake to make, but perhaps Schurter et al didn’t make this kind of mistake and that’s one of the legitimate reasons why he won.

  • James

    Can someone explain how Orica & BMC expect to win on GC while they allow riders such as Darwin Atapuma & Yates ride off the front and win stages? I just don’t get it. Either they sit with the GC guys and make life hard for the opposition with 1 2 1 2 attacks with their leaders OR they sit in the pack save their obvious energy and legs for another hillier day and then do the 1 2 on the others…. doesn’t that make more sense? Discuss….

    • Andy B

      this just highlights doubts they have about their GC contender.. “We need to get something out of this grand tour”
      Sponsors will appreciate a stage win or red jersey more than someone finishing top ten in GC

      Atapuma and yates could still help in the mountains later on
      they may feel the “pressures off” with some results already

      • Dom

        If every team or even just the gc teams rode like sky professional road cycling (particularly in stage races) would be rendered unwatchable. Look no further than most of the climbing stages in this years tdf, absolute snoozefest. The spring classics are always better to watch these days because anti-entertainment tactics that sky employs don’t work in that sort of racing.

    • Nick Clark

      Yes and no. Having multiple guys up there on GC (Yates/Chaves, Atapuma/Sanchez) makes both teams a lot harder to tag later on in the race.

  • Hamish Moffatt

    Lennard Hofstede? From the Big Bang Theory?

BACK TO TOP

Pin It on Pinterest

11 NEW ARTICLES
December 10, 2016
December 9, 2016
December 8, 2016