It's accepted wisdom that Tour de France pros don't just lie in bed all day on a rest day, ignoring all thought of riding their bikes and cherishing every minute free of the pain and stresses that resume a day later. That's saved for the afternoon and evening, after they've been out on a very easy, one or two-hour spin, usually to the cafe. In short, do enough to keep the legs ticking over, they'll thank you for it on Tuesday morning.
> What do pro riders do on Tour de France rest days?
Well, the good people at Velofacts trawled the data, presumably from Strava feeds, and collated a neat spreadsheet to show exactly what was done by who. And boy was there an anomaly, Team Jayco–AlUla climber Chris Harper spending his rest day by *checks notes* smashing out four hours at 36km/h average speed. You know it was a rest day, Chris?
Obviously we jumped straight over to Strava for confirmation of his 'Morning ride'...
Nearly four hours, 36.1km/h average speed, 3,500 calories burned, no coffee stop (implied by the elapsed time), just a proper day out...
Polka dot jersey-wearing Jonas Abrahamsen was the only other rider on Velofacts' list to do more than 55km, although the Norwegian's rest day spin was completed at a more 'leisurely' 32.9km/h. Leisurely for a Tour de France pro, at least.
Of the big dogs, Remco Evenepoel, Wout van Aert, the Ineos riders and UAE all went for an hour-and-a-half at pretty sociable average speeds. Decathlon–AG2R La Mondiale's Bruno Armirail wins the award for the shortest rest day spin listed, managing to stop his computer quicker than teammate Felix Gall, with just 100m in it. Back to the proper racing today...
Add new comment
20 comments
£40m London cycling bridge plan under review amid fears project "may not even be deliverable" if costs increase
Does anyone know the phone number of the Dutch Transport Ministry?
Difficult as I can't find a "like" comparison eg. bridge of what looks like 200-300m across water with piers in water. I imagine the latter will likely push up costs considerably though other designs are available of course.
There's this one, 800m long (only 3.5m wide deck though...), construction finished 2021 - 6.5 million euros. Seems rather cheap but that's what it says.
This one is definitely on solid ground but another pier-supported bridge: 330 metre total, suspended part 190m, estimated to cost 2 million euros. Of course this one is more "functional"...
Monsieur Campenaerts, c'est un bidon, pas un bidet.
Though if you're using a bidet for that, you're doing it wrong too!
Wouldn't "fix things, so you can move fast" work better?
Hollyhocks are excellent. If sown from seed they establish themselves in year 1 and flower from year 2 onwards.
Re. "move fast and fix things" - the shifters need replacing on my bike - how soon can she make it round?
Could the bridge be cheaper if, y'know, they made it straight, perpendicular to the banks and therefore shorter?
You're welcome.
People proposing "form-over-function" bridges? In London? Can it be?
Building costly "extraordinary infra" - which isn't as functional as the humdrum versions - is of course a common thing (example from Copenhagen). In fact humans have always been tempted by building "wonders" where utility is at best secondary.
That would make the inclines steeper though if it needs to be a certain height in the middle
And there might not be an appropriate site directly opposite for the other end of it.
True, or ... perhaps the bends are also to slow those dangerous cyclists?
The site's designers do mention things like avoiding moorings and achieving clearance:
https://www.burohappold.com/projects/royal-victoria-dock-silvertown-bridge/
OTOH there are standard UK non-features like no separate marked space for pedestrians and cyclists (and not great width for both). Zero (possibler one, stationary?) cyclists in visualisations.
I think it's "pedestrian bridge" with "cyclist" added on a sticker.
Yes, but spare a thought for the poor architects!
It looks like it is shaped so that river traffic can go in a straight line beneath it. Note the black barriers in the water to stop boats crashing into the bridge supports. It is a lot easy to steer a bike around a tight bend than a boat under a bridge.
Note the black barriers in the water to stop boats crashing into the bridge supports
When you write 'stop'.... Don't forget the 'driverless cars smash into buildings' topic. Some of those undercover drivers are bound to have jobs steering boats! and that means £40 million going the way of the Road Traffic Offences Review and the Baltimore Bridge, while the helmsman simply claims a first epileptic fit and being unable to recall the incident.
The black barriers are indeed to provide a channel for boats running through but not, in general, to go beneath it, part of the bridge design is that the middle section will swing backwards to allow large boats to access the western end of the docks; some pretty sizable ones go through there, as you can see from the screenshot below from Streetview of a boat tied up to the west of the existing footbridge, that's why that footbridge had to be built so high with access at each end by stairs and lifts and is now so unsuitable for the new housing development. Quite why the council should bend over backwards to accommodate cruise liners and enormous private yachts, possibly the most polluting form of transport on Earth, is another question. Doubtless they have been told it makes economic sense but I would imagine that most passengers docking there will head straight to central London to spend their tourist dollars rather than sampling the delights of the borough of Newham.
"The Serpentine Bridge" - just to add a bit of confusion.
Such smugness.
Sickening innit.
Just a Domestique passing a bottle to the yellow jersey, nothing to see here