Crashes, what can be done?

[saunaking]

Bumping this thread to say that the root cause of a lot of these late crashes is the fact that there are 2 separate races with different riders going on at the same time on the same road.

No GC contender today had any interest in gaining time on their competitors in the last hour of todays stage.

Would 2 finish lines be that bad? More than 3km. 3 km seems arbitrary - its way too late because the racing is getting tense around 10k to go.

If it was at 10k to go - take GC times here - so no need for GC guys to ride at the front in case of splits in the group.

Then the GC rider will truly drop off and roll in, not worry about losing 8" in some stupid late split.

10k gives the sprint teams lots of time to arrange the trains. 3 km is way too late for that. You need to be in position already at the 3k mark making the racing intense.

With a GC finish time far from the stage finish, then the stage players can battle it out amongst themselves and the GC guys can stay safe

 

[CyclistAbi]

At some point indeed likely GC riders won't have that much initiative to be there. And for specialists to take over. Result likely being in between 25% to 50% crashes reduction in such situations. But first the whole safety culture in pro peloton will need to mature. Currently it's in my opinion not possible to introduce such changes. Or better to introduce any changes. Beyond some that don't bring much results.

 

[IndianCyclist]

The main reasons why there are more crashes in sprint finishes than mountain/hilly finishes is the speed and the number of riders in the finale. Another reason being the need to get to a favorable position by use of elbows/head butts. The 3 k rule is not effective as it only allows for the partial separation of riders after the sprinters team have got organized and but before the GC teams are out of the picture and only in the case of mechanical or crash. It is clear that GC neutralization will be the most effective as it is completely removing those riders out of the picture which amount to 40% of the peloton. The place that this must happen is 10k to go before the sprint teams gets organized. Implement the same in the races and the data will tell if it is effective of not. For sure the situation is unlikely to get worse than before and it will save the GC riders from terrible consequences.

 

[BR2]

It would be the wrong conclusion to think the 3km rule needs to be extended.

If we look at the crashes from yesterday specifically, a dog ran onto the street, a wheel slipped in a wet, likely oily curve, a rider didn't look where he was going, a crash occurred among sprinters in the reduced peloton.
- And yet none of the GC riders were really badly hurt.

I agree the peloton is too big. It doesn't have to be. But actually arriving at the real finish line in the same time as everyone is a basic part of a GT. I am already annoyed about the 3km rule, but okay. A 10km rule is just a no go for me.

Rather come up with routes that likely won't be decided by a few seconds, so that GC riders don't panic if they are about to lose 3 seconds.

Also punish riders for wrong or reckless riding - a punishment for simple "wrong" behaviour in the bunch would not have to be harsh, just a sign that this is not deemed okay and natural.

 

[wheresmybrakes]

Why not simplify it. In certain GT's, no sprint stages. In other GT's, no mountain stages. In 1 GT throw the lot in. That way, everyone is happy. Sprinters don't have to climb mountains, mountaineers don't have to get caught up in sprint trains. If you're a daredevil, go for the one with everything in it. (This is a joke by the way)

 

[SafeBet]

Would 2 finish lines be that bad? More than 3km. 3 km seems arbitrary - its way too late because the racing is getting tense around 10k to go.

If it was at 10k to go - take GC times here - so no need for GC guys to ride at the front in case of splits in the group.

I've always been against the neutralisation but I'm starting to think the organizers could be a little flexible when weather AND road conditions are deemed unsafe for a 170 rider peloton approaching the stage finale at full speed.

The 10 km suggestion seems somewhat sensible. There's some work to do obviously since if you take time exactly at the 10 km banner Zoccarato doesn't win the stage despite having the best time (and in other scenarios a rider who was dropped earlier doesn't have a chance to get ST as the bunch even if he manages to get back before the finish). I don't know, it's not easy. Perhaps it wouldn't change a thing, but I'd be open to try different solutions.

 

[Netserk]

No GC contender today had any interest in gaining time on their competitors in the last hour of todays stage.

If that was true, why was QS pulling the group when the pink jersey and Rogla was caught up in a crash?

If the GC contenders from QS, Jumbo, Ineos, UAE and Bahrain stayed together behind the sprinters, there would be far fewer crashes, and they would affect the GC less.

But that would be an unstable equilibrium. We clearly see that some contenders have in fact an interest in gaining time on their competitors, so they would always defect in that situation. And once some try to stay ahead of the crashes while battling for position with the sprinters, all the other contenders must as well.

 

[Netserk]

I've always been against the neutralisation but I'm starting to think the organizers could be a little flexible when weather AND road conditions are deemed unsafe for a 170 rider peloton approaching the stage finale at full speed.

You also need the equipment in place to be flexible. That was possible with the Bari circuit in 2014.

The 10 km suggestion seems somewhat sensible. There's some work to do obviously since if you take time exactly at the 10 km banner Zoccarato doesn't win the stage despite having the best time (and in other scenarios a rider who was dropped earlier doesn't have a chance to get ST as the bunch even if he manages to get back before the finish). I don't know, it's not easy. Perhaps it wouldn't change a thing, but I'd be open to try different solutions.

A different finish line for GC makes no sense. Extending the 3 km rule to 10 could work though.

 

[Netserk]

I agree the peloton is too big.

Without checking it, I think the Giro peloton is the smallest it has been for more than 40 years.

EDIT: 39 years to be exact.

 

[Red Rick]

Punish riders adequately for dangerous behavior instead of consistently rewarding it.

Much bigger factor tham 3km rule or parcours

 

[jmdirt]

Bumping this thread to say that the root cause of a lot of these late crashes is the fact that there are 2 separate races with different riders going on at the same time on the same road.

No GC contender today had any interest in gaining time on their competitors in the last hour of todays stage.

Would 2 finish lines be that bad? More than 3km. 3 km seems arbitrary - its way too late because the racing is getting tense around 10k to go.

If it was at 10k to go - take GC times here - so no need for GC guys to ride at the front in case of splits in the group.

Then the GC rider will truly drop off and roll in, not worry about losing 8" in some stupid late split.

10k gives the sprint teams lots of time to arrange the trains. 3 km is way too late for that. You need to be in position already at the 3k mark making the racing intense.

With a GC finish time far from the stage finish, then the stage players can battle it out amongst themselves and the GC guys can stay safe

10K is too far IMO

 

[CyclistAbi]

For specialists contesting the sprint. If the rules would be made more clear and enforced more frequently. That would likely reduce the number of crashes. Long term. Like each new generation for things to slowly improve. If the effort is invested.

Neutralization. This actually doesn't reduce crashes. Hence 3km or 10km. It doesn't make that much difference. Crashes percentage won't drop because of the length of it. The problem is the group is not reduced. GC riders having initiative to be there. It's a flaw of the current system. GC riders have as much business of being there as sprinters being in a bunch sprint on the MTF. It's a flaw of the system that nobody bothered to resolve yet.

The idea that current system proves you are a worthy GC contender. Due to having the skills to ride in such bunch. It's not a skill but a lottery. Hence bike handling skills don't have much to do with it. On top of that and as a GC contender. You have to prove it constantly. It's not like you are riding in a bunch only at the end of sprint stages.

 

[CyclistAbi]

So in short currently crashes at the end of sprint stages are there by design. If the crash didn't occur, to make the selection, then the system failed. And partially it does but ultimately it doesn't come down to skill. Avoiding it. It's a lottery. Hence the idea that it proves worth of GC riders is moot. Skill of a GC rider is proven elsewhere.

 

[CyclistAbi]

It's like watching tennis and ping pong in the same match. Literary. It just makes no sense doing it like that.

P.S. I am not talking about pickleball.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

So in short currently crashes at the end of sprint stages are there by design. If the crash didn't occur, to make the selection, then the system failed.

I think that calls for explanation. Who do you believe has a vested interest in there being crashes? What 'system' benefits from rider injuries?

 

[Wyndbrook]

The simple thing of ensuring courses as as safe as possible are still being woefully neglected, the wooden island in Napoli and the corner where Thomas lost his chain should have been marshalled and protected.
It's not ok to say, well there were no incidents this time.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I think that calls for explanation. Who do you believe has a vested interest in there being crashes? What 'system' benefits from rider injuries?

Nobody really. Likely a hundred years back this was not such of a problem. A finish of a sprinters stage. In regards to the whole peloton being there. Now when it is. Nobody has really done anything to address it.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

Nobody really. Likely a hundred years back this was not such of a problem. A finish of a sprinters stage. In regards to the whole peloton being there. Now when it is. Nobody has really done anything to address it.

In that case, what did you mean by this:

So in short currently crashes at the end of sprint stages are there by design.

and this:

If the crash didn't occur, to make the selection, then the system failed.

Because it sounds very much like you are saying that race designers want final straight crashes.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Armchair cyclist

No. Race (stage) designers don't have much power over this. Other instances responsible for cycling development and safety need to acknowledge and resolve this problem by changing the format of racing. When it comes to sprint stages on stage races. To remove the initiative for GC riders and their teams to be there in the finale of sprint stages. Like it is now.

P.S. For rather obvious reasons sprint stage designers are rather keen to put such stages in town centers. That is something that is rather beneficial to introducing more crashes. But that is another story. Not related to what we discussed above.

 

[houtdffan]

far fewer crashes back when it was the 1km rule

How about going back to that. You seldom saw dangerous sprints. Only real mass crashes at the finish were Hinault's in 1985 and the stage 1 crash in 2003. Now, we get 3-4 every GT


I actually wonder if taking the real time of every rider at the line, without regards for splits would make things safer. You wouldn't have some riders going at grannie speeds while others are going flat out. That speed differential is rather dangerous

 

[SHAD0W93]

far fewer crashes back when it was the 1km rule

How about going back to that. You seldom saw dangerous sprints. Only real mass crashes at the finish were Hinault's in 1985 and the stage 1 crash in 2003. Now, we get 3-4 every GT


I actually wonder if taking the real time of every rider at the line, without regards for splits would make things safer. You wouldn't have some riders going at grannie speeds while others are going flat out. That speed differential is rather dangerous

But there are a lot more sprint teams and trains now clogging the front even more. If the time goes to you crossing the line, not only way it increase the issue of more riders at the front to set up a sprint now for not only the sprinter but FC rider, GC leaders would start sprinting as well at a slower speed than the others, and it will be hard to get the exact time without a chip. It also doesn’t help with some of the routes having a complicated finish.

 

[Armchair cyclist]

@Armchair cyclist

No. Race (stage) designers don't have much power over this. Other instances responsible for cycling development and safety need to acknowledge and resolve this problem by changing the format of racing. When it comes to sprint stages on stage races. To remove the initiative for GC riders and their teams to be there in the finale of sprint stages. Like it is now.

P.S. For rather obvious reasons sprint stage designers are rather keen to put such stages in town centers. That is something that is rather beneficial to introducing more crashes. But that is another story. Not related to what we discussed above.

So what did you mean by the comments that I quoted above? Or do you now wish to withdraw them. Because they still stand as an accusation against someone, and the idea that stage designers don't have much power over the design of a stage seems an audacious argument to put forward.

 

[houtdffan]

But there are a lot more sprint teams and trains now clogging the front even more. If the time goes to you crossing the line, not only way it increase the issue of more riders at the front to set up a sprint now for not only the sprinter but FC rider, GC leaders would start sprinting as well at a slower speed than the others, and it will be hard to get the exact time without a chip. It also doesn’t help with some of the routes having a complicated finish.

also, start using wider finishing straights

 

[SHAD0W93]

also, start using wider finishing straights

Would be great!!

 

[Netserk]

far fewer crashes back when it was the 1km rule

Confounded, but some real effect too.

also, start using wider finishing straights

The wider the road, the more lateral movements. Gentle bends when it's false flat stretches the peloton out.