Crashes, what can be done?

[RedheadDane]

If a bunch sprint stage decided GC outcome then in 99% of the time something is wrong with such GT race.

Not if the GC action is - partially - decided by crosswind action leading up to said bunch sprint.

I don't have issues with that and i support such efforts.

Then why are you so focused on the minor issue of making sure GC riders don't lose time? Better to put all the effort on the important matters.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@RedheadDane

Because for the problems you listed you didn't list any potential solutions. Hence i imagine we are still far from understanding the potential solutions and after implementing it. Basically saying lets not do anything for now.

As for the bunch sprint stages problem. That is by no means a minor problem. It's a huge problem. And as people have dealt with it for a while. I feel that only the last step is now missing. That is to actually do something about it. About a known problem with known potential solutions.

AFAIK the majority of possible solutions circulating doesn't exclude the possibility to gain GC advantage in crosswinds situation. Hence i see this as a non issue.

 

[roundabout]

I mean maybe let's define the extent of the problem first before we can think of what to do with it and if it is actually worth taking action.

How many GT GC deciding crashes actually happened on bunch sprint stages in the actual sprint/buildup to the actual sprint - say last 10km or so?

Most GC riders crashing out happen on other points of the race.

 

[RedheadDane]

Because for the problems you listed you didn't list any potential solutions. Hence i imagine we are still far from understanding the potential solutions and after implementing it. Basically saying lets not do anything for now.

Why don't you come up with an easily implementable solution to the "issue" of GC riders losing time during sprint-stage crashes? On that doesn't take away the riders' need to be able to position themselves. UCI already tried by implementing the 3K rule. But what about crashes like the one on stage 5, which happened with 11 Ks to go - and because of a touch-of-wheels - should UCI implement a 15K rule? Or maybe a 20K rule? Or a 50K rule? Can't you see how stupid that looks?

As for the bunch sprint stages problem. That is by no means a minor problem. It's a huge problem.

Compared to people getting seriously injured, or even dying, GC riders losing time is a minor problem!

 

[Netserk]

Extend the neutral zone to the first 90 % of the flat stages, and then have them race the last 10 % for the stage win only, with GC neutralised. Alternatively, hold all flat stages as ITTs.

That could be done.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@roundabout

Enough.

@RedheadDane

Crosswinds are a non factor in this debate. Nobody is saying or trying to eliminate the possibility to gain GC advantage in crosswinds situation.

@Netserk

In my opinion whatever it takes to start noticing a significant drop in statistics. That is GC related crashes at the end of bunch sprint stages. Preferably 0.

@all

In the end the truth is we are talking about some minor adjustments. In contrary on how some people in this thread are now exaggerating on how cycling would surely die after. And then the same people in other thread say something like ah it's a bunch sprint stage today i will take a pass.

 

[Leinster]

My commentators (not English) says the problem is the DS with their race radios wanting everyone on front, so it just ends up being impossible no matter how large the road is. One simply cannot have both sprinters and gc and both their trains in the front, it's just impossible. So according to them the crashes happens when everyone is trying to get to the front.

To my noob eyes/ears that sounds about accurate and so it's about changing mindsets to fit the space that's actually there.

If it was just about GC riders being mixed in with sprinters in the finale, we wouldn’t have crashes in classics, and we wouldn’t have crashes in final straights when gc riders are soft pedaling, and we wouldn’t have crashes as riders approach a climb on a narrow road, and we wouldn’t have crashes 50km out.

But we do.

I’m all for taking action to reduce the risk of crashes. It seems to me that the increase of time gap to 3s/3km (when I started watching it was 1s/1km) at stage racing has probably improved things. But I don’t want to see a situation where gc riders can just check out of the bunch with 10km to go.

 

[Oldermanish]

Honestly racing is about risk that comes with speed and some natural impacts like rain, wind, hills.
Excessive road furniture and suicidal changes in road width are not natural and should be minimized whenever possible. If they absolutely can't; those risks could be marked much better and perhaps have a unique sign 1km out. That or make it part of the town/village/city route award to remove them and replace them after the race passes. They seem fine with repaving a large amount of alpine roads in the Tour de F....in the middle of nowhere. Have a budge for median removals where they may help.

 

[RedheadDane]

Crosswinds are a non factor in this debate. Nobody is saying or trying to eliminate the possibility to gain GC advantage in crosswinds situation.

I'm a little confused... you keep saying that GC riders should be encouraged to not go near the front of the peloton during the finale on flat stages, but it's also totally fine that they go near the front during the finale on flat stages. Crosswind situations tend to happen on flat/sprint stages.

In the end the truth is we are talking about some minor adjustments. In contrary on how some people in this thread are now exaggerating on how cycling would surely die after. And then the same people in other thread say something like ah it's a bunch sprint stage today i will take a pass.

And you're acting like cycling is dying because every now-and-then a GC rider loses time, or crashes out completely, because of getting caught up in/behind a crash on a sprint stage.

 

[Axel Hangleck]

Putting my motorsport hat on, it completely baffles me when we see multiple rider crashes, with riders & bikes strewn all over the road - and nothing happens. Really? Just because it's been like this forever doesn't mean it has to be like this. If I'm a team manager/sponsor and my GC contender loses time through no fault of his own, I want to know why nothing was done. And don't tell me 'they should have ridden near the front' - as that's not possible. In fact, I think that is what is causing crashes - you can't all ride at the front - it's just not possible.

I'd like to see more pro-active decisions from the race director; if it's really bad then you stop the race. If not, you can carry on at a reduced pace set by the lead car, enabling people to get back on easily after a major pile up. Sorted, no problem. Except, this is cycling, and is stuck in another era.

 

[Netserk]

Putting my motorsport hat on, it completely baffles me when we see multiple rider crashes, with riders & bikes strewn all over the road - and nothing happens. Really? Just because it's been like this forever doesn't mean it has to be like this. If I'm a team manager/sponsor and my GC contender loses time through no fault of his own, I want to know why nothing was done. And don't tell me 'they should have ridden near the front' - as that's not possible. In fact, I think that is what is causing crashes - you can't all ride at the front - it's just not possible.

I'd like to see more pro-active decisions from the race director; if it's really bad then you stop the race. If not, you can carry on at a reduced pace set by the lead car, enabling people to get back on easily after a major pile up. Sorted, no problem. Except, this is cycling, and is stuck in another era.

Would all crashes qualify for that, or only the ones involving the most privileged GC contenders? Should it also apply in one-day races, and would you also order the breakaway to wait?

It is already possible for the commisaires to neutralise the race in case of force majeure, and I would like it to stay that way.

 

[RedheadDane]

I'd like to see more pro-active decisions from the race director; if it's really bad then you stop the race. If not, you can carry on at a reduced pace set by the lead car, enabling people to get back on easily after a major pile up. Sorted, no problem. Except, this is cycling, and is stuck in another era.

They do sometimes stop/neutralise the race when it's really bad. We saw that as recently as at the Giro this year. However, "really bad" tend to mean "there are so many people injuried that the ambulances are all busy, so if there was a crash shortly afterwards, it would be disaster!"

 

[Oldermanish]

Honestly racing is about risk that comes with speed and some natural impacts like rain, wind, hills.
Excessive road furniture and suicidal changes in road width are not natural and should be minimized whenever possible. If they absolutely can't; those risks could be marked much better and perhaps have a unique sign 1km out. That or make it part of the town/village/city route award to remove them and replace them after the race passes. They seem fine with repaving a large amount of alpine roads in the Tour de F....in the middle of nowhere. Have a budget for median removals where they may help.

On the point about unique signage: on today's descents I did notice added very bright neon chevron signs for tight turns. Perhaps I'd missed them before but they were an obvious addition to the black/white signs with increased number of chevrons for tight turns. That's a great move. Now do the same thing to other features or, Netserk posted: " It is already possible for the commisaires to neutralise the race in case of force majeure, and I would like it to stay that way. "
I used to enjoy racing to the narrow portions or hill approaches but honestly didn't have to compete with 179 others to do it. I'm not sure how to functionally freeze a racing peloton through a hazard but it would be just like yellow zone racing in F1-no one is allowed to advance.
As for road furniture-remove the really bad ones like median curbs and then replace them after. It costs money but then; the tourist towns generally are paying to be included in the route.

 

[bajbar]

If we just look at the TDF, where the crashes seem to be the most prominent lately, the biggest problem is downhill sections in the last 20km of sprint stages. That should simply not happen. Having 180 riders drag racing each other to be in the top 20 positions on a downhill going at 70-80 km/h is a recipe for disatser. And a clear reason for crahes in stges 1 and 3 in this years TDF.

 

[Leinster]

If we just look at the TDF, where the crashes seem to be the most prominent lately, the biggest problem is downhill sections in the last 20km of sprint stages. That should simply not happen. Having 180 riders drag racing each other to be in the top 20 positions on a downhill going at 70-80 km/h is a recipe for disatser. And a clear reason for crahes in stges 1 and 3 in this years TDF.

I disagree, in that, I think we still need to have climbs in the last 20km of some sprint stages, so there are going to have to be some downhill sections to those. But the nature of the downhills needs to be looked at carefully; 180 riders en bloc approaching a pinch point where the road chokes down to half the width is obviously to be avoided.

 

[The Hegelian]

Putting my motorsport hat on, it completely baffles me when we see multiple rider crashes, with riders & bikes strewn all over the road - and nothing happens. Really? Just because it's been like this forever doesn't mean it has to be like this. If I'm a team manager/sponsor and my GC contender loses time through no fault of his own, I want to know why nothing was done. And don't tell me 'they should have ridden near the front' - as that's not possible. In fact, I think that is what is causing crashes - you can't all ride at the front - it's just not possible.

I'd like to see more pro-active decisions from the race director; if it's really bad then you stop the race. If not, you can carry on at a reduced pace set by the lead car, enabling people to get back on easily after a major pile up. Sorted, no problem. Except, this is cycling, and is stuck in another era.

One thing I would be looking into - if I was a DS or team owner or GT star - would be investing in someone to make workable collarbone protectors. Surely if a moto-GP rider can hit the deck at 200+kph, and walk away, a cyclist could find a way to protect the collarbones. You look at those old leather helmets and think: yep, we've worked out how to protect the head now.

Maybe they're a bit annoying (as is a helmet - the tdf peloton protested when they became compulsory), maybe you only need them in the first week......but surely you need some insurance on those easily breakable/race ending parts.

All the advances in machinery.....zero on collarbones.

 

[Leinster]

One thing I would be looking into - if I was a DS or team owner or GT star - would be investing in someone to make workable collarbone protectors. Surely if a moto-GP rider can hit the deck at 200+kph, and walk away, a cyclist could find a way to protect the collarbones. You look at those old leather helmets and think: yep, we've worked out how to protect the head now.

Maybe they're a bit annoying (as is a helmet - the tdf peloton protested when they became compulsory), maybe you only need them in the first week......but surely you need some insurance on those easily breakable/race ending parts.

All the advances in machinery.....zero on collarbones.

DSM’s kit supplier reckon they have some wonder material that protects from road rash injuries.

Beyond that, a collar bone protector is a very specific piece of kit for a very specific injury that isn’t necessarily more prevalent than injuries to other extremities. The best protection for a collar bone injury is probably learning how to fall better.

 

[Koronin]

One issue here is cyclist are wearing Lycra or barely anything to protect them. Other sports have more protection. Even baseball players have more protection for legs/arms that are most likely to get hit by a pitch than cyclists have.

 

[Serpentin]

One issue here is cyclist are wearing Lycra or barely anything to protect them. Other sports have more protection. Even baseball players have more protection for legs/arms that are most likely to get hit by a pitch than cyclists have.

It´s hard to imagine how it would be designed... But yeah racing in lycra in 100 km/h is crazy if you think about it.

Smaller peloton and don´t count GC on flat stages at all is low hanging fruit I think..

 

[RedheadDane]

Smaller peloton and don´t count GC on flat stages at all is low hanging fruit I think..

How would you classify a flat stage? I don't think simply saying "a stage with no categorised climbs" would work. After all, what if there's a small non-categorised climb - and in some races even rather big-looking climbs can be non-categorised - about 2 Ks from the finish? Shouldn't a rider be allowed to attack, and maybe get a few seconds back?

 

[CyclistAbi]

But I don’t want to see a situation where gc riders can just check out of the bunch with 10km to go.

Why?

To me it's like watching Pacquiao in the ring with Tyson and Joshua. Or Farah running in front of Bolt. It's silly. And most importantly what do we gain that is worthy of risking the GC battle for it?

@RedheadDane

Crosswind reduces a bunch. All in all crosswinds do not have much to do with what we discussed earlier.

 

[Koronin]

It´s hard to imagine how it would be designed... But yeah racing in lycra in 100 km/h is crazy if you think about it.

Smaller peloton and don´t count GC on flat stages at all is low hanging fruit I think..

Yeah, I have no clue about design. That's way off of what I can do. But lycra isn't exactly protecting anyone from anything when it comes to road rash let alone more severe injuries.

 

[Leinster]

One issue here is cyclist are wearing Lycra or barely anything to protect them. Other sports have more protection. Even baseball players have more protection for legs/arms that are most likely to get hit by a pitch than cyclists have.

Baseball players have 90 mph projectiles being thrown at them, and spend most of the rest of the 3-hour game standing around. It's completely different requirements to cycling, which is 4-5 hours of intense cardio, and only getting something thrown at you if you've really annoyed some temperamental Belgian/Italian sprinter.

I could never understand why baseball players wore long pants in July and August, until the first time I slid on the dirt of a baseball diamond. That's worse than road rash. You absolutely would not wear lycra in that game. But you'd never go for a 4-hour bike ride in baseball gear either.

 

[RedheadDane]

Crosswind reduces a bunch. All in all crosswinds do not have much to do with what we discussed earlier.

The big crash on stage five happened because of the stress of anticipated crosswinds. But let me remind you once again that no one was seriously injured in that crash! A few riders has had to leave since that, but that's it. As for Bardet losing time: Frankly; who cares? He probably wasn't going to challenge much for the race anyway, and now he can go hunt stages and possibly KoM! Sure, you can be slightly saddened for him, if he was really aiming to go for the GC - seems like he more and more doesn't really want to these days - but in the greater scope of things, it's just not that important.

I just don't understand how this thread went from How do we prevent serious injury? to How do we make sure GC riders don't lose time?

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Why?

To me it's like watching Pacquiao in the ring with Tyson and Joshua. Or Farah running in front of Bolt. It's silly. And most importantly what do we gain that is worthy of risking the GC battle for it?

A Grand Tour is (in theory at least) all about the accumulated fatigue that the riders will endure during a three week race, and the flat stages and their finales add to that.

Crashes/accidents/mechanicals/great comebacks and setbacks following crashes are a also fundamental part of the sport's history. Of course no one wants to see the horror crashes with fatal consequences, but there are thankfully not that many of them, when you consider the total amount of races and crashes.

Many myths, legends and what ifs have also been based on riders who were sadly taken out of races due to crashes or other accidents.

René Vietto created a name for himself because he sacrificed his own chances to help his fallen leader, Eugène Christophe lost the Tour because he crashed on the descent from Tourmalet and later got illegal help from a child to fix his bike, Ocaña lost the 1971 Tour on the descent from Col de Menté because Merckx and Zoetemelk made him crash hard, Beloki got his career destroyed on the Col de Manse descent, but we still remember it because of how Armstrong avoided going down with him, Ullrich and Armstrong waiting for each other after crashes despite their fierce rivalry, Contador and Froome crashing out of the 2014 Tour, Froome losing out on a possible 5th Tour win, Nibali and Van Vleuten crashing out on their way to the Olympic titles in Rio, Jean-François Bernard losing the 1987 Tour due to mechanicals and a sneaky attack by Mottet, Roche and Delgado and a year later getting his career ruined by crashing in an ill-lit tunnel during the Giro, Roglič crashing out due to a "body check" by Colbrelli, Burghardt riding into a dog, Guerini colliding with a spectator but still winning on Alpe d'Huez, Michael Rasmussen losing a podium spot due to multiple crashes on the last ITT, Igor Antón losing his GC chances in the 2008 Vuelta and a possible overall win in the 2010 edition, Valverde breaking his collarbone in the 2006 Tour, which might have been his best chance to ever win the race, Kruijswijk hitting a wall of snow, Froome having to run up Mont Ventoux, Evenepoel losing Lombardia, and so on and so on.

Now this doesn't mean that the UCI and the race organisers shouldn't do more to minimise the risks, but it will be impossible to get rid of all crashes, and Roglič will not be the last GC favourite who gets struck by bad luck. If everything were straight forward and the favourites always won, the sport would actually get worse.