Adam Hansen

[Ricco']

The only thing that makes this devoided of sense is because a cycling stage is a fraction of a race, where X number of riders compete point to point in a given route on a same distance to complete it in the quickest amount of time possible, not a series of events where Y number of riders race competitively in a given distance while X-Y number of riders compete in a shorter distance without getting any time penalty for that.

 

[search]

It makes plenty of sense. 3k from the finish sprinter teams have already started their battle for position and GC teams are still at the front.

yeah, and they are at the front for no reason. Just stay out of it. Problem solved.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

To be fair, that practically never happens in today's cycling. Not on a completely flat finish with intact sprint teams.

Quinn Simmons won a sprint stage in San Juan this year with such a move, the finisseur attack is not quite dead yet. There was also stage 2 of the 2017 Vuelta, where nothing had happened until 5k to go and once inside it, we suddenly got echelons, which meant Nibali took some seconds on the other GC riders. It makes no sense why either of those time gaps should be nullified.

As others have stated, this would create far more problems than it solves (or attempts to solve), and I also doubt the average viewer would react very positively when all the GC riders peel off, soft-pedal into town 2 minutes behind, but don't lose any time for it over and over. And it becomes even dumber if a GC rider attacks with 5.5k to go, is still in front of the peloton at the 5k banner and gets awarded the time gap for GC.

So at best, this is extremely poorly thought out. At worst, Hansen knows this would partially destroy sporting merit and doesn't care. In both cases, he's proven everyone who said he would be terrible in this role right.

 

[Red Rick]

The only thing that makes this devoided of sense is because a cycling stage is a fraction of a race, where X number of riders compete point to point in a given route on a same distance to complete it in the quickest amount of time possible, not a series of events where Y number of riders race competitively in a given distance while X-Y number of riders compete in a shorter distance without getting any time penalty for that.

It fundamentally changes quite a lot of stages. Take stage 4 of the Tour de France last year. Now it makes much more sense for Van Aert to wait for Vingegaard, cause he takes time guaranteed, and maybe the GC guys are even fractured all for a meme finish line that's not even a real finish line.

Also, finishes are carefully selected to be supposedly be somewhat safe. Now you might get the 'finish line' smack bang in the middle of a descent or a roundabout.

Also, what's the cutoff? Is it illegal to have hills in the final 5km now unless it's an uphill finish?

 

[Red Rick]

Quinn Simmons won a sprint stage in San Juan this year with such a move, the finisseur attack is not quite dead yet. There was also stage 2 of the 2017 Vuelta, where nothing had happened until 5k to go and once inside it, we suddenly got echelons, which meant Nibali took some seconds on the other GC riders. It makes no sense why either of those time gaps should be nullified.

As others have stated, this would create far more problems than it solves (or attempts to solve), and I also doubt the average viewer would react very positively when all the GC riders peel off, soft-pedal into town 2 minutes behind, but don't lose any time for it over and over. And it becomes even dumber if a GC rider attacks with 5.5k to go, is still in front of the peloton at the 5k banner and gets awarded the time gap for GC.

So at best, this is extremely poorly thought out. At worst, Hansen knows this would partially destroy sporting merit and doesn't care. In both cases, he's proven everyone who said he would be terrible in this role right.

Slighly hilly finales it'll create fake GC action that would otherwise never happen, all for a finish line that isn't the finish line.

In reality, this rule would not improve safety. It would increase GC action, chaos, and probably *** sprinters over more than it would help them.

 

[Red Rick]

Remember how stage 2 of Itzulia was a dangerous descent finish.

Oh look what is suddenly a descent finish for the GC guys

 

[QueenStagiaire]

This is stage 3 of the 2021 Tour, the prototypical nervous bunch crashfest, the thing Adam Hansen wants to fix. How does the racing change if we put a weird finish line on a descent for some riders into it? I have no idea.

I think we should try to fix stage finishes instead of completely revolutionizing our understanding of a stage race.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

This is stage 3 of the 2021 Tour, the prototypical nervous bunch crashfest, the thing Adam Hansen wants to fix. How does the racing change if we put a weird finish line on a descent for some riders into it? I have no idea.

To be fair, this finale design should never have been allowed in the first place, but that's a separate discussion.

 

[Red Rick]

This is stage 3 of the 2021 Tour, the prototypical nervous bunch crashfest, the thing Adam Hansen wants to fix. How does the racing change if we put a weird finish line on a descent for some riders into it? I have no idea.

Yeah they wanna "solve" crashes with a one size, fits all gimmick rule.

In reality what you need is that races need to be assessed invidually. Which requires consistent effort. But that's too hard.

 

[Nick2413]

This would change the dynamics of the race in a lot of ways, for sprinters as well, and would there even be less crashes? It feels like just pushing out the risk to 5k and having the same problems there. But then that area needs to be vetted for safety and the 5-10k before that can’t have anything potentially dangerous or GC affecting either, which is a lot harder to control than the real finish line.

Any time a question about safety is asked that doesn’t seem terrible on the surface, the overwhelming response will always be yes. This type of questioning doesn’t take into account anything else or even work at solving the problems it claims to much of the time.

 

[topcat]

Just get rid of sprint stages, outlaw mountain top sprinting, make a gt two weeks long: 6 mountain top finishes, 5 descent finishes, 2 tt, one rest day. We solved the problem, problem solved.

 

[Nick2413]

Just get rid of sprint stages, outlaw mountain top sprinting, make a gt two weeks long: 6 mountain top finishes, 5 descent finishes, 2 tt, one rest day. We solved the problem, problem solved.

Don’t worry, they’re working on it.

 

[Netserk]

It makes plenty of sense. 3k from the finish sprinter teams have already started their battle for position and GC teams are still at the front. Furthermore there is literally no downside to at least trying, other than people injustly claiming it makes no sense or it marks the end of cycling.

It makes far more sense to extend the 3 km rule rather than having an additional finish line.

 

[fmk_RoI]

It makes far more sense to extend the 3 km rule rather than having an additional finish line.

Actually, neither makes sense. All you're doing is increasing the risk of moral hazard causing even more crashes.

In this article, we describe the details of the RFR and the apparent motivation behind the 2005 expansion in the coverage of this rule. We then discuss risk taking in the sprint finishes in order to set the context for our empirical analysis. This is particularly important, given the complexity and heterogeneity in sprint strategies across individual cyclists and teams. We describe our data and analysis in the subsequent section. Not only do we find no evidence that the change reduced crashes inside 3 km, we also find that the change may have increased crashes—a result that is consistent with a moral hazard response of riders taking greater risks when protected by the red flag. We conclude with thoughts about how alternatives to the RFR would potentially alter sprint strategies and eliminate the RFR moral hazard.

 

[Netserk]

Actually, neither makes sense.

The inequality still holds. Even if both are below the threshold of making sense, they are not equally senseless.

 

[fmk_RoI]

The inequality still holds. Even if both are below the threshold of making sense, they are not equally senseless.

Nonsense.

 

[tobydawq]

Nonsense.

Not really.

-4 < -2

 

[Libertine Seguros]

As usual, a solution looking for a problem.

And just like ever, asking the péloton a loaded question in such a manner leads to a biased conclusion. With riders knowing that they don't have to expend any energy in the last 5km, they can just sit up and soft-pedal, and we have literally reached the Paris-Dakar system of having set racing sections and set liaison sections which are just untimed kilometres logged for reliability purpose to get from town to town. I mean, the question is, at its crux as far as many of those riders are concerned, "would you like to have to do slightly less work?" - I mean, if somebody asks me that kind of qustion I'm saying yes!

As ever, the problem that they have isolated this as a solution for is not one that could not be solved without any fundamental changes in how cycling is scored or taken. Stricter rules - and actually enforcing them - about acceptable finishes in stages expected to end with a bunch finish, would go a long way. It might hurt some town councils who want the still photos of their bunch finish with some landmark in the background (this is the notorious problem the Women's Tour has had with many paid hosts wanting a sprint finish thinking this automatically means excitement, but also wanting to show off the town/city leading to some ridiculously over-technical finishes that simply cannot sustain a full péloton without danger) and need to perhaps relocate the finish to some edge-of-town industrial estate where the need for those roads to sustain haulage traffic means that they are wide enough and straight enough for a sprint to be conducted safely... but that's an easier price to pay than abandoning time gain for some stages. The point of a bike race is that you race from one place to another and any point in between is a place where you can gain time. Road cycling isn't scored on placement except in a tie break. It's scored on time, so telling riders certain parts of the course are off-limits for gaining time instantly renders them worthless.

Again - if they want to extend the 3km rule to 5km, then that is a much better - and much simpler - solution in my book.

And as I mentioned with my Keith Yandle comparison a while back, it's kind of funny that once Adam Hansen was this highly respected toughman of the péloton, when late in his career he turned into a charity case who rails against anything that looks too much like hard work.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Not really.

-4 < -2

The lesser of two weevils is still a weevil. And when we don't need weevils, it is nonsense to claim one would be better than the other.

 

[Netserk]

The lesser of two weevils is still a weevil. And when we don't need weevils, it is nonsense to claim one would be better than the other.

Is it also nonsense to claim one would be worse than the other?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Is it also nonsense to claim one would be worse than the other?

When we don't need either, yes. That simply validates one of them.

 

[Gigs_98]

The Adam Hansen thread, my favorite place to discuss rulebooks and philosophy.

 

[Red Rick]

That was fun something. Let's not do it again

 

[42x16ss]

I get what people are saying regarding Hansen and his proposed solutions, but you know what he IS doing? Listening to the riders. Which more than any of the governing bodies have done. Hopefully he gets some decent input from them and comes up with something better than what's in place

 

[fmk_RoI]

For a guy who's 'listening' he's asking a lot of leading questions. It's almost like he already knows what he wants to do and simply wants some weight behind him. That is not 'listening'.