Crashes, what can be done?

[will-10]

I think taking GC at 3km/5km to go if the peloton is together is a sensible suggestion. I don't like the idea of everyone sitting up completely and rolling in minutes down though. but getting the GC guys less involved on the sprint stages might help.
Even at 1km to go we had Kwiato and Carapaz 2nd and 3rd wheel - there needs to be some incentive for these guys to get out of the way...

 

[Broccolidwarf]

This isn't really the point is it? The current rules force them to congest the roads at some of the most dangerous parts of a flat stage because they have to be there to benefit from the rule. The idea is to remove them from these parts of the race so that 1) there is more space and 2) crashes that may happen do not have a huge effect on the overall GC classification.

Exactly.

The problem with the current 3K rule is, that it only applies to crashes and technical issues.

That means the GC boys still want to be on the front, for the run-in to the finish, because they fear gaps being created - and them losing time.

If those gaps no longer mattered, for the final part of a bunch sprint stage, there would be far fewer teams - and riders - fighting over the same real estate, thus making it less dangerous for everyone.

And I'd argue the results would be pretty much the same, both for sprinters and GC riders, so from a sporting perspective it doesn't compromise the race in any way.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

5 riders per team

I disagree with that, I think it is complete overkill, and I think it completely changes race dynamics.

Also, you would see a host of teams reduced to 1-2-3 riders, already at the end of week 2, due to illness, fatigue and solo crashes.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

I don't like the idea of everyone sitting up completely and rolling in minutes down though

Most of the peloton does that on mountain stages

 

[Lequack]

Yes sprinters do it all the time, I think GC riders should as well on sprint stages. They are only in the front so not to lose time, which the sprinters dont care about. Ineos don't want to sprint and go 60kmh in the last few kilometers with all the risks, but they are forced to.

 

[Billie]

The riders love to blame everybody: the route, the UCI, the organisers but they take very little blame themselves.

They ride like absolute nuts and then they complain when there are huge crashes.

Compare how the peloton behaves with how it behaved 15 years ago.

 

[will-10]

Yes sprinters do it all the time, I think GC riders should as well on sprint stages. They are only in the front so not to lose time, which the sprinters dont care about. Ineos don't want to sprint and go 60kmh in the last few kilometers with all the risks, but they are forced to.

Most of the peloton does that on mountain stages

I should clarify - I don't like the idea of GC guys rolling in minutes down to be given s.t. (outside of current 3km rule with crashes/issues etc).
Both the examples above riders are rightly given the time they cross the line.

 

[Broccolidwarf]

I should clarify - I don't like the idea of GC guys rolling in minutes down to be given s.t. (outside of current 3km rule with crashes/issues etc).
Both the examples above riders are rightly given the time they cross the line.

Why?

I mean, why is it significant, that GC riders fight to stay in front, in the last 10K of a bunch sprint stage?

When we KNOW it creates dangers, due to too many riders wanting the same real estate - and it has zero actual sporting significance for those riding GC - why are we forcing them to do it?

 

[perico]

It'll be impossible to remove crashes completely and I don't think sprinters going down at the very end is most people's biggest issue, although I don't think anyone wants riders to get injured. Ewan went down through loss of control/touch of wheels/whatever that had nothing to do with the route and that's always going to be a risk. Unless they decide to ban people they can determine caused a crash, whether it's judged an accident or not, riders will push the limits to try and win.

The biggest problem most people seem to have with crashes on these types of stages is affects the GC race, because GC riders are forced to mix it at the front of the peloton with the sprint trains, or risk losing time by getting stuck behind a crash, gaps happening at the finish etc. The 3km rule is supposed to help here, and it does, but it only applies if there is a crash, so the GC riders still have to be there in the mix. This means that crashes are more likely. Taking GC times earlier means that GC riders, and their domestiques, can drift back and let the sprinters and their trains get on with it. There will still be crashes, but they would have a much smaller impact on the race overall and hopefully they'd be reduced as there would be more space on the road. I don't think it'd have much of an effect on the overall racing. People who want to go for yellow can still go for yellow. The break may actually work together more to hit that 10km mark as far ahead of the peloton as they can and you can still give bonus seconds on the sprint line to separate the winner and determine jersey wearers. I honestly think that the impact would be overwhelmingly positive.

I suppose the other option is to keep cutting team sizes. 5-6 riders per team is going to cut the number of riders on the road significantly.

I can’t support shrinking teams. It wasn’t all that long ago that we had 10 rider teams.

Make the three km rule universal on all classified sprint stages. GC times taken at 3-5 km or whatever and shut it down.

 

[Netserk]

It is a 0 sum game. Hard to blame riders for riding like it is a 0 sum game.

GC is. The sport as such and sponsor exposure are not.

 

[Danskebjerge]

Organizers have to take into account that riders are human beings and that there will be such errors.
Not every crash can be avoided. It's about reducing the number. Give less opportunities for such small mistakes to become game-changing.

ø

I actually agree. And there HAVE been parts of the route planning that look questionable. It's just that, if you look at the reactions to what the UCI president has said, people seem to be extremely one-sided and subjective. The number of crashes is always a function of the course and the way it is ridden.

 

[Netserk]

Results = sport = exposure.

Is total exposure of sponsors is constant?

 

[Broccolidwarf]

In fact I would be very surprised if a stage like yesterday didn't have a lot more media exposure than your typical TdF sprint stage.

Of course, but saying crashes changes the economic dynamics of the sport, is a far cry from that.

I would be greatly surprised, if any broadcaster factored "crashes" into their economic model, when deciding if it is worth it to broadcast the Tour.

Same goes for sponsors of teams and races.

 

[Pirazziattacks]

The riders love to blame everybody: the route, the UCI, the organisers but they take very little blame themselves.

They ride like absolute nuts and then they complain when there are huge crashes.

Compare how the peloton behaves with how it behaved 15 years ago.

I love these responses. If I was a pro cyclist, I would simply ride safely and not crash.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1409839746482950144

View: https://twitter.com/faustocoppi60/status/1409839746482950144

Same again, it's everywhere. Such insight, wow.

 

[King Boonen]

Of course, but saying crashes changes the economic dynamics of the sport, is a far cry from that.

I would be greatly surprised, if any broadcaster factored "crashes" into their economic model, when deciding if it is worth it to broadcast the Tour.

Same goes for sponsors of teams and races.

It also doesn't factor in people not watching later stages because riders they wanted to see aren't in the race anymore. I don't know what impact this has, but I would guess in certin demographics it could be quite large.

 

[carolina]

They knew it was dangerous and asked for the neutralization. After being ignored by ASO they should have arranged between each other to let the sprinters do their thing and just chill on the last 8-10km. Instead they decided to ride like crazy.

If they can organize each other to do this "strike" today, they can organize each other to not be in front when it's not necessary. GC teams "needing" to be at the front is what increases the risk, so just don't be there. And if you lose a few seconds to the sprinter teams... who cares?

 

[Netserk]

It also doesn't factor in people not watching later stages because riders they wanted to see aren't in the race anymore. I don't know what impact this has, but I would guess in certin demographics it could be quite large.

It adds up over the years. And it severely impacts the image of the Tour (and the sport).

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

They knew it was dangerous and asked for the neutralization. After being ignored by ASO

ASO didn't ignore them, the UCI did.

 

[King Boonen]

They knew it was dangerous and asked for the neutralization. After being ignored by ASO they should have arranged between each other to let the sprinters do their thing and just chill on the last 8-10km. Instead they decided to ride like crazy.

If they can organize each other to do this "strike" today, they can organize each other to not be in front when it's not necessary. GC teams "needing" to be at the front is what increases the risk, so just don't be there. And if you lose a few seconds to the sprinter teams... who cares?

Asking people not to try and exploit an advantage within the rules is probably a tough sell.

They raised the issue on the morning of the race. I think they should have done what was asked, but you can see the irritation that might arise when a route that has been known about for the better part of a year and has likely been examined to the nth degree is only complained about as a race is meant to start. I think the riders have a responsibility to organise themselves better and communicate these things with some advanced warning. It's harder to ignore complaints ahead of time, especially as it might be viewed that some people are complaining for cynical reasons (see the recent issues in the Giro for example).

 

[Lequack]

 

[King Boonen]

It adds up over the years. And it severely impacts the image of the Tour (and the sport).

I'd agree with that. I think it also impacts the publics view of cycling in general too.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Regarding the reports of the riders asking for neutralization of stage before the start yesterday - I think it is worth recalling that the weather forecast at that time was for constant rain the whole day. Had that proved correct then a neutralization would have been at least justifiable because that final descent would have been hairy, no doubt. But surprisingly, as it turned out, conditions were perfect - dry roads and very little wind

 

[carolina]

Asking people not to try and exploit an advantage within the rules is probably a tough sell.

Of course, there is no easy solution.

Even with the neutralization at 10kms, all the GC teams will go crazy until that point.
Trying to find better routes is also not that easy. Maybe yesterday that was the better route available?

The UCI and the organizers need to do better and a change of rules might help reduce the crashes, but ultimately, having 10 different teams trying to be at the front is the main issue and no rule will avoid that.

 

[Pirazziattacks]

Blame the DSes, blame the riders for trying to win in a crash game.

If only there was a way to think about why this happens at the Tour in particular and what could be done to at least try to change that. Nope, much easier to blame the fans, blame the DSes, blame the riders and forget about it all until next time. They're all idiots, unlike fans, pundits, occasional cyclists, local crit warriors and so on.

Honestly progress may only be possible through a concerted effort at organising on the part of riders i.e. not through the CPA. In other words, it's highly unlikely.

 

[saunaking]

They knew it was dangerous and asked for the neutralization. After being ignored by ASO they should have arranged between each other to let the sprinters do their thing and just chill on the last 8-10km. Instead they decided to ride like crazy.

If they can organize each other to do this "strike" today, they can organize each other to not be in front when it's not necessary. GC teams "needing" to be at the front is what increases the risk, so just don't be there. And if you lose a few seconds to the sprinter teams... who cares?

Are you serious? "If they can organize to do this strike"
What strike. F***ing embarassing. Only Gripel wanted to do anything. It was a piss break for most