Vuelta a Espana 2016

First stage that I've watched from this years race. Bit of a corker.

I suppose Contador was thinking that if he could stick with Quintana, he'd take time off him in the TT. Hopefully he has good sensations later in the race. I thought he was bluffing a bit with all that surgical tape, as he is known to do. Haven't seen the ITV4 show, but Kirby and Kelly seemed convinced that whoever came top would stay in red all the way to Madrid. I'm pretty sure the 5 summit finishes between now and then will leave things a bit more open than that, though.

Well Quintana and Movistar are looking like Sky did in the Tour, just on a higher level than everyone else. That said that is a hell of a lot of racing left to do, and an ITT, so I'd say they are bold prediction from Kelly and Kirby (who I initially had time for but is getting more and more grating).

It was Juan Antonio who first made that prediction.

Ditto. My wife summed Kirby up quite well on Sunday "This guy makes himself laugh an awful lot".

You couldn't disagree with him, could you?

That smile...

He definitely resembles that remark. Plus after watching for a few years you realise he's actually laughing at many a re-cycled joke/anecdote about Kelly's racing days.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/quintana-calls-for-power-meters-to-be-banned-from-racing/

Interesting - I don't know if anyone noticed yesterday that Quintana spent a while flicking through the screens on his Garmin at one point after he'd dropped Froome and just before he'd dropped Contador - I would love to have known what he was looking for. Probably just trying to get rid of a live segment or something LOL.

How does he feel about the earpiece through which his DS would have told him Froome was coming back and to attack again? Does that remove the drama?

Stupid lazy cyclists. Y U even rest day? What am I supposed to do without bike racing to watch?

It was a stretch to ask Gary and David to get an hour of programming out of the shed today. That "studio" cracks me up.

HR, I suppose?

So much this. You can't pick and choose your tech, and it's not as if Quintana and Valverde don't use power meters. Put your money where your mouth is and ditch them yourselves first.

There is this prevalent yearning for the racing of yesteryear but unless you lock road-racing into some sort of time capsule like Keirin it isn't going to happen, and any such moves will be blocked by the bike sponsors anyway.

If the tech is there, obviously you are going to use it. It would be daft not to. That doesn't make it wrong for them to wish they weren't there.

I do personally feel that powermeters are benefiting certain types of riders more than others, (with Quintana and Valverde clearly thinking they are the later). Removing them from the peleton would probably lead to more attacks, probably slower overall times up climbs, but much more exciting to watch.

Team coaches would probably have a heart attack if it such a rule came into affect.

Why can't you pick and choose your tech? Not all tech has the same effect.

All sorts of flaws in this logic.

• Why would they willingly disadvantage themselves, it's all about everyone not using them.
  
• & just saying that we shouldn't have power meters is not asking anyone to lock cycling in a time capsule. Are there any other sports (other than motor-racing) where athletes get such precise data on their performance/thresholds etc?
  

Not sure if the benefit from powermeters is that great...just makes it more scientific and exact. Getting rid of them isn't going to turn Froome into an attacking rider like Contador, it will simply mean he goes more on feeling than a dial

I'm just saying that advances will be made continually within the technology of cycling. You can either adopt a luddite approach and try to block or stall technological advances or embrace them. At the end of the day the pressure to use the technology comes from the manufacturers who sponsor and supply the teams, so they will use it, whether they like it or not, as we saw with disc brakes. They want Joe Public to buy it, so they want it showcased on the pro's bieks.

My point about Quintana and Valverde is if they feel that strongly about it try racing without them. I fail to see a flaw in that logic, if it is logic at all, just a suggestion for them to put their money where their mouth is.

As for other sports I imagine there is all sorts of data available from their performances to learn from. Whether they can access that during the activity and use it to influence their tactics is another matter. I would just say banning power meters would be the tip of the iceberg. Just look at the silly rules that surrounded the bike you had to use for the hour record that effectively ended it as a popular challenge for pros for decades.

End of the day it isn't going to happen anyway.

Froome is an attacking rider. Some myths die hard I suppose. Like him not being able to descend or falling off a lot. If Quintana doesn't need a power meter then why does he have one on his bike? If he needs it and just can't make it work as well for him as Froome does then tough luck, get a better trainer.
It's not as if Froome is the only rider using one effectively. The idea of banning them is a non starter.

I think you've got to tread a fine line. Obviously they ban or allow technology according to various factors. I tend to think they would ban something that made it less of a sporting spectacle. For example they'd never allow laser sights on cues in snooker.

Power meters are on that line. They don't enhance performance, but they do enhance decision-making.

Did you guys actually read the article? Quintana said:

"They take away a lot of spectacle and make you race more cautiously," Quintana said. "I'd be the first in line to say they should be banned."

He doesn't say that they don't offer an advantage, or that he doesn't need a power meter, or that he feels that strongly about it. He simply observes that bike racing might be more of a spectacle if they were banned.

In any case, it's wrong to say that you can, "either adopt a Luddite approach and try to block or stall technological advances, or embrace them." Instead, you can take each technological advance at its own merit and then take a view. For example, Formula 1 is forever tinkering with what's allowed and what isn't; the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of certain weapons that they have adjudged to be especially cruel, regardless of how 'advanced' they might be.

Great thanks, now I want a pool cue with a laser on it

F1 is not a good example to use, it's become a joke. And the Geneva Convention might ban weapons, but people out there are still going to use them, like poison gas for example.

FI may be a joke, but it's actually a very good example of a sport where what's permitted and what isn't can have a massive effect either way.

I don't get your point about people still using poison gas. My point was that you don't permit the use of weapons on the basis of how advanced they are. That there are some nasty people out there indiscriminately using some pretty savage weaponry is neither here nor there.

I think it's also an example of a sport that has interfered far too much and the tinkering has left it a shadow of its former spectacle. It's also an example of a sport whether money talks big so the richer teams had much, much better cars that the smaller ones. In cycling at least with sponsorship from various big bike manufacturers tech-wise it should be an more even playing field, which is something F1 sought to achieve with its tinkering.