Crashes, what can be done?

[Pozzovivo]

Reducing the number of riders in races would kill the sport. Teams would fold, riders would have their careers cut short and opportunities in the sport would dwindle.

There has always been crashes in cycling. It's not a big enough deal to make any drastic changes.

Completely disagree.

It would in no way "kill" the sport. Why would it?

Two riders died last season alone. We saw so many terrible crashes yet again. Safety is s a very big deal.

Cycling is one of the few sports that still accept this enormous risk, and I am very confident that, like the rest of society, all trends point towards safety being more and more a priority.

Reducing the number of riders is an obvious big win for everyone but the worst half of the current pros. A very similar number of teams would still exist. If anything, many of them would welcome such a change because they would have the same publicity but needing to hire less people for it. Financial gain also for them.

For a sport to improve in the long run, we need to accept that some people are gonna lose at one point. There will always be trade-offs. The improved safety by field reduction would save countless of pro's from injury and even worse, in the future. Also, having the maximum number of pro riders is not goal in itself - why not have 100's of F1 drivers? Would that make the sport better? I'd say no.

 

[Pozzovivo]

While the riders will probably scream blue murder about it, I think we actually need longer races, because if riders have to manage their efforts more, there will be periods of recovery where the bunch isn't going full gas. Based on the current trends in the sport, races are getting shorter, more explosive, and the bunch is rising in speed to the point where they can go full gas everywhere. Take the big pile-up in the Itzulia last year, the course wasn't as selective as usual, and the bunch soft-pedalled the penultimate climb, meaning a much larger group was together at that point than ought to have been the case. The riders then went hell for leather on the descent to chase the breakaway down, took too many risks and created a crash, the effects of which were worsened by poor action (or inaction) on the part of the organisers.

In a harder or longer race, riders will need to use the descents for recovery more, so you likely won't see as many crazy risks taken on those parts of the race. If the race had been more selective, the group would have been smaller so that even had the crash still occurred, the impact of the accident would likely have been less. The riders like to say that hard courses increase fatigue and that causes accidents, but I'm not convinced that riders going harder and faster on easier courses isn't creating just as many, and that the lack of selectivity means that those crashes are affecting more riders and occurring at higher pace than they otherwise would.

Sure, but having longer races is a poor substitute for reducing the number of riders at the start. If you just make them longer but not selective (long flat races for instance) you will have an increased risk not a reduced risk. Making races harder is not the solution.- rider type and quality will adjust and we end up with the same problem eventually. The variable that really matter is the number of riders fighting for position. That can be changed from the top down and make big improvements in safety for current and future pro riders.

 

[Peyroteo94]

Completely disagree.

It would in no way "kill" the sport. Why would it?

Two riders died last season alone. We saw so many terrible crashes yet again. Safety is s a very big deal.

Cycling is one of the few sports that still accept this enormous risk, and I am very confident that, like the rest of society, all trends point towards safety being more and more a priority.

Reducing the number of riders is an obvious big win for everyone but the worst half of the current pros. A very similar number of teams would still exist. If anything, many of them would welcome such a change because they would have the same publicity but needing to hire less people for it. Financial gain also for them.

For a sport to improve in the long run, we need to accept that some people are gonna lose at one point. There will always be trade-offs. The improved safety by field reduction would save countless of pro's from injury and even worse, in the future. Also, having the maximum number of pro riders is not goal in itself - why not have 100's of F1 drivers? Would that make the sport better? I'd say no.

What? Accept? Cycling is dangerous, there is no other way to see it. They crash at 50/60 kph quite often without any protection (only a helmet), of course they will get hurt. But I agree with you, reducing teams is a fantastic decision. More open races and more safety. But people are forgetting (IMHO) what really cause crashes. Human error! It is important to raise awareness in young riders about unwritten rules. This is the main reason for a more dangerous sport. GC teams in the last 10 km trying to be at the front, GC teams try to be in front before going downhill, they no longer respect pee breaks. Even Sagan said one time, riders nowadays don't stop to pee anymore and do that on the bike. Unwritten rules is what is missing. We don't like riders like Cancellara or LA but sometimes we need "police officers" to cool down some young and reckless riders.

 

[Pozzovivo]

What? Accept? Cycling is dangerous, there is no other way to see it.

I'm glad you agree and I share your concern with other important factors. By accepting I meant the organizers, riders and teams continue to run the show like before even when safety concerns are being spoken about. They seem to be arguing over minor details here and there, but not addressing the 180-rider big elephant on the road. They would initiate a rider reduction if they really wanted it to be much safer.

I completely agree that cycling will always involve big risk - just the nature of the game. I completely agree that the fading of the unwritten rules (driven by the GC teams) contributes to this.

 

[Divergence]

Reducing the number of riders in races would kill the sport. Teams would fold, riders would have their careers cut short and opportunities in the sport would dwindle.

There has always been crashes in cycling. It's not a big enough deal to make any drastic changes.

I do not think so. I have no use for Intermarche or Arkea or any "breakaway team". I like to watch the best guys go up high mountains. If we can make it so that the best ones have less chance of getting injured there is more of a spectacle for me.
Of course, this would mean that the lazier and the less talented riders will not get to ride the TdF anymore, but I am not shedding any tears over that.
Someone mentioned that it is human error that causes crashes. That is true, but the incentive to take risks is much reduced in a smaller bunch.
Another thing is to reduce bunch sprints. The TdF should not have any pancake flat stages and therefore the so called sprinters should be disincentives to go to grad tours. Let the compete in the velodrome.
Lastly, amend the calendar so that races are occurring regularly and non overlapping.

 

[Berniece]

Another thing is to reduce bunch sprints. The TdF should not have any pancake flat stages and therefore the so called sprinters should be disincentives to go to grad tours. Let the compete in the velodrome.
Lastly, amend the calendar so that races are occurring regularly and non overlapping.

The whole idea of a GT is that you have a bit of everything that makes the sport great. So you don't need to reduce the amount of bunch sprints, but you could rethink how you would handle bunch sprints. Maybe instead of the 3km line, put it at 10km so there are less people in front. Maybe also only let 3 riders per team be in the front for the last 2km's. Just spitballing.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I do not think so. I have no use for Intermarche or Arkea or any "breakaway team". I like to watch the best guys go up high mountains. If we can make it so that the best ones have less chance of getting injured there is more of a spectacle for me.
Of course, this would mean that the lazier and the less talented riders will not get to ride the TdF anymore, but I am not shedding any tears over that.
Someone mentioned that it is human error that causes crashes. That is true, but the incentive to take risks is much reduced in a smaller bunch.
Another thing is to reduce bunch sprints. The TdF should not have any pancake flat stages and therefore the so called sprinters should be disincentives to go to grad tours. Let the compete in the velodrome.
Lastly, amend the calendar so that races are occurring regularly and non overlapping.

Au contraire I think we need more overlapping races. The Dauphiné and Suisse overlapping, Paris-Nice and Tirreno-Adriatico clashing, this used to be good. It forces different selections of riders, keeps some of the big name clashes to fewer events, making them seem more special when they occur, and gives a tactical element to the deployment of riders. I think having the same péloton in every race would be extremely boring, and while the TDF doesn't really have so much of this as it is the biggest race in the year for pretty much everybody on the startline, the lesser guys that build their whole season around some of the smaller races are far more important and integral to the sport than making sure we get the exact same field in every GT.

But this is more an issue of the entertainment spectacle rather than the safety, so is off-topic.

I do however agree with trying to reduce the number of inevitable bunch sprints, until last year that was something ASO were doing well with, making their flat and transitional stages a bit more interesting, so that while there were still multiple sprint stages, the sprinters often had to earn their right to sprint out the win, thinning out the bunch a bit and meaning fewer riders in a small space at the end of the stage. More precise rules around suitability of finishes for stages where a bunch sprint is expected (ASO has its stage categories broken down for the points classification here so anything categorised as flat by them would count) is a suggestion that has been mooted many times, and still seems perfectly reasonable. If that means a town bidding on the finish has to hold the finish away from their historic town centre they want the photos of the sprint in front of, then so be it. Sprint trains have got too well drilled, well oiled and there's too many teams with a full sprint train now for there to be enough room up front; plus because the breakaway (if there even is one) isn't allowed enough rope to dare to dream anymore, none of the rouleur engines are being burned off chasing the break because they're all being kept for the leadout, so you've got more people driving a high pace at the end of the stage.

 

[ingsve]

I do not think so. I have no use for Intermarche or Arkea or any "breakaway team". I like to watch the best guys go up high mountains. If we can make it so that the best ones have less chance of getting injured there is more of a spectacle for me.
Of course, this would mean that the lazier and the less talented riders will not get to ride the TdF anymore, but I am not shedding any tears over that.
Someone mentioned that it is human error that causes crashes. That is true, but the incentive to take risks is much reduced in a smaller bunch.
Another thing is to reduce bunch sprints. The TdF should not have any pancake flat stages and therefore the so called sprinters should be disincentives to go to grad tours. Let the compete in the velodrome.
Lastly, amend the calendar so that races are occurring regularly and non overlapping.

So by "I don't think so" you mean "I agree the sport would be affected but I don't care".

 

[James M]

The whole idea of a GT is that you have a bit of everything that makes the sport great. So you don't need to reduce the amount of bunch sprints, but you could rethink how you would handle bunch sprints. Maybe instead of the 3km line, put it at 10km so there are less people in front. Maybe also only let 3 riders per team be in the front for the last 2km's. Just spitballing.

I was posetively suprised about the rule they implemented last year about in advance saying these certain few stages will be 5km, 6km. Hopefully thats a first step in the right direction as its imo way more upside from it than downside (riders, big profiles wether it be sprinters, GC riders crashing out), for sprinters its good aswell, win-win.

If were spitballing they can go further and say if not 10km lets say like now 5-6km on a few certain selected stages and instead nullify GC time at 5-6km regardless of a crash or not. Would reduce alot of tension and probability of a mass crash even more if thats the intention and purpose, and people can still go on flyers so in that sense doesnt change anything and GC riders statistically never attack there anyway - more upside than downside - just reducing the probability of mass crash and people going home.

Regardless I welcomed the rule from last year and thought it was a improvement at least, hopefully its more of that to come, noone benefits from big profiles or whoever rider crashing out from GC riders and sprinters fighting over position in stages that will lead to sprints regardless of these new rules or not.

 

[ingsve]

GC teams in the last 10 km trying to be at the front,

This should be helped by the new rule that extends the distance for no time-loss for crashes to 5km and the gap between riders to cause a new time from 1s to 3s on sprints stages. This should mean less pressure on GC favourites to stay in front because of fears of splits in the peloton.

 

[ingsve]

I was posetively suprised about the rule they implemented last year about in advance saying these certain few stages will be 5km, 6km. Hopefully thats a first step in the right direction as its imo way more upside from it than downside (riders, big profiles wether it be sprinters, GC riders crashing out), for sprinters its good aswell, win-win.

If were spitballing they can go further and say if not 10km lets say like now 5-6km on a few certain selected stages and nullify GC time at 5-6km regardless of a crash or not. Would reduce alot of tension and probability of a mass crash even more if thats the intention and purpose, and people can still go on flyers so in that sense doesnt change anything and GC riders statistically never attack there anyway - more upside than downside - just reducing the probability of mass crash and people going home.

Regardless I welcomed the rule from last year and thought it was a improvement at least, hopefully its more of that to come, noone benefits from big profiles or whoever rider crashing out from GC riders and sprinters fighting over position in stages that will lead to sprints regardless of these new rules or not.

They also added the rule that it takes 3s from the backwheel of one rider to the front wheel of the next rider for there to be a new time for the peloton. This should reduce the fear of losing a lot of time due to being on the wrong side of a split in the peloton.

 

[Pozzovivo]

I do not think so. I have no use for Intermarche or Arkea or any "breakaway team". I like to watch the best guys go up high mountains. If we can make it so that the best ones have less chance of getting injured there is more of a spectacle for me.
Of course, this would mean that the lazier and the less talented riders will not get to ride the TdF anymore, but I am not shedding any tears over that.
Someone mentioned that it is human error that causes crashes. That is true, but the incentive to take risks is much reduced in a smaller bunch.
Another thing is to reduce bunch sprints. The TdF should not have any pancake flat stages and therefore the so called sprinters should be disincentives to go to grad tours. Let the compete in the velodrome.
Lastly, amend the calendar so that races are occurring regularly and non overlapping.

Hear hear!

That is just some of the many reasons why the reduction in peloton size is the most obvious big win for safety without changing the sport drastically. Changes the incentive structure for risk-taking enormously as well as the race dynamic for the better. Distill's the product as well.

 

[Pozzovivo]

So by "I don't think so" you mean "I agree the sport would be affected but I don't care".

Changing the sport for the better is actually what @Divergence and I are arguing for. Much safer, probably a lot more dynamic, and a much more distilled product of top racers. This reduces team roster sizes also which makes total sense for sponsors and fans alike.

 

[RedheadDane]

Changing the sport for the better is actually what @Divergence and I are arguing for. Much safer, probably a lot more dynamic, and a much more distilled product of top racers. This reduces team roster sizes also which makes total sense for sponsors and fans alike.

Simply removing all Wild Card teams is not the answer.
It's based on the assumption that "WT riders good, PT riders bad".
However, that's not how it works. Castrillo was good last year when he won two stages in the Vuelta.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Simply removing all Wild Card teams is not the answer.
It's based on the assumption that "WT riders good, PT riders bad".
However, that's not how it works. Castrillo was good last year when he won two stages in the Vuelta.

Divergence's point seems to be that all teams without GC riders/top climbers are bad and should therefore be removed.

 

[RedheadDane]

Divergence's point seems to be that all teams without GC riders/top climbers are bad and should therefore be removed.

The Tour with only UAE, Visma, Quickstep, and Bora just sounds rather boring...

 

[Samu Cuenca]

The Tour with only UAE, Visma, Quickstep, and Bora just sounds rather boring...

I don't know where the cutoff is supposed to be in this scenario, only that Meintjes' 20th place from last year wasn't good enough.

 

[ingsve]

Changing the sport for the better is actually what @Divergence and I are arguing for. Much safer, probably a lot more dynamic, and a much more distilled product of top racers. This reduces team roster sizes also which makes total sense for sponsors and fans alike.

No, you're advocating a worse sport, in my opinion, in the name of safety and which probably wouldn't changes much in terms of safety. The least safe part of the sport is going downhill and that's not going to change with smaller fields because the peloton is most often spread out anyway and people are still going to go all out in the decent simply because some riders are much better at it and the rest are desperately trying to follow and that will not change one bit with smaller fields.

 

[Divergence]

The whole idea of a GT is that you have a bit of everything that makes the sport great. So you don't need to reduce the amount of bunch sprints, but you could rethink how you would handle bunch sprints. Maybe instead of the 3km line, put it at 10km so there are less people in front. Maybe also only let 3 riders per team be in the front for the last 2km's. Just spitballing.

First of all I apologize for the bad spelling in my original post .
This won't change the like of Lutsenko trying to look back to find a guy like Can who is going to sprint erratically and veer of course many times in order to achieve something that not many people care fore (maybe his mother and some Brits do).

Au contraire I think we need more overlapping races. The Dauphiné and Suisse overlapping, Paris-Nice and Tirreno-Adriatico clashing, this used to be good. It forces different selections of riders, keeps some of the big name clashes to fewer events, making them seem more special when they occur, and gives a tactical element to the deployment of riders. I think having the same péloton in every race would be extremely boring, and while the TDF doesn't really have so much of this as it is the biggest race in the year for pretty much everybody on the startline, the lesser guys that build their whole season around some of the smaller races are far more important and integral to the sport than making sure we get the exact same field in every GT.

But this is more an issue of the entertainment spectacle rather than the safety, so is off-topic.

I do however agree with trying to reduce the number of inevitable bunch sprints, until last year that was something ASO were doing well with, making their flat and transitional stages a bit more interesting, so that while there were still multiple sprint stages, the sprinters often had to earn their right to sprint out the win, thinning out the bunch a bit and meaning fewer riders in a small space at the end of the stage. More precise rules around suitability of finishes for stages where a bunch sprint is expected (ASO has its stage categories broken down for the points classification here so anything categorised as flat by them would count) is a suggestion that has been mooted many times, and still seems perfectly reasonable. If that means a town bidding on the finish has to hold the finish away from their historic town centre they want the photos of the sprint in front of, then so be it. Sprint trains have got too well drilled, well oiled and there's too many teams with a full sprint train now for there to be enough room up front; plus because the breakaway (if there even is one) isn't allowed enough rope to dare to dream anymore, none of the rouleur engines are being burned off chasing the break because they're all being kept for the leadout, so you've got more people driving a high pace at the end of the stage.

I think the best should go head to head all the time, like in many other sports. F1 is often taken as an example and there all of the best ones go head to head all the time. Many other sports are similar and I cannot think of a sport that does what cycling currently does where the best can go full season without facing each other.

So by "I don't think so" you mean "I agree the sport would be affected but I don't care".

The OP said it would kill cycling. I do not agree. The sport would be changed for the better.

Simply removing all Wild Card teams is not the answer.
It's based on the assumption that "WT riders good, PT riders bad".
However, that's not how it works. Castrillo was good last year when he won two stages in the Vuelta.

He can train well for a lesser race and get spotted and get the chance at the TdF the next year. It is not like Castrillo happens every year.

The Tour with only UAE, Visma, Quickstep, and Bora just sounds rather boring...

I do not agree. It is those teams that make the race anyway.

I don't know where the cutoff is supposed to be in this scenario, only that Meintjes' 20th place from last year wasn't good enough.

Meintjes could be a dom on one of the top teams.

No, you're advocating a worse sport, in my opinion, in the name of safety and which probably wouldn't changes much in terms of safety. The least safe part of the sport is going downhill and that's not going to change with smaller fields because the peloton is most often spread out anyway and people are still going to go all out in the decent simply because some riders are much better at it and the rest are desperately trying to follow and that will not change one bit with smaller fields.

There is some danger in going downhill, especially of you are chasing a group. I understand that danger is there and that is part of the sport. However, crashes like Basque or at the Tour with Rog are the ones I would like to be avoided. And those could be with smaller fields.

 

[ingsve]

The OP said it would kill cycling. I do not agree. The sport would be changed for the better.

You said crazy *** like "I have no use for Intermarche or Arkea or any "breakaway team"" yet still claim you think the sport would be better. Give me a break.

 

[Peyroteo94]

This should be helped by the new rule that extends the distance for no time-loss for crashes to 5km and the gap between riders to cause a new time from 1s to 3s on sprints stages. This should mean less pressure on GC favourites to stay in front because of fears of splits in the peloton.

Yes but I think safety (EWP, less downhill finishes) is not a problem in road racing. Crashes happens 99% of the time due to human error. Even the crash last year in Pais Vasco, Vingegaard blamed himself for ignoring his instinct (he was afraid of that descent but decided to ignore it) right before his crash and told he will never do that again. He said he prefers to lose time than lose his life.
My big concern is people safety (pros, amateus, recreational riders like me) when riding alongside cars, etc. We are really vulnerable.

 

[ingsve]

Yes but I think safety (EWP, less downhill finishes) is not a problem in road racing. Crashes happens 99% of the time due to human error. Even the crash last year in Pais Vasco, Vingegaard blamed himself for ignoring his instinct (he was afraid of that descent but decided to ignore it) right before his crash and told he will never do that again. He said he prefers to lose time than lose his life.
My big concern is people safety (pros, amateus, recreational riders like me) when riding alongside cars, etc. We are really vulnerable.

Well, the point of that rule is to change human behavior. GC riders push towards the front of the peloton in order to not lose time to splits in the peloton so rules changes that help change that behavior is just positive.

 

[Divergence]

You said crazy *** like "I have no use for Intermarche or Arkea or any "breakaway team"" yet still claim you think the sport would be better. Give me a break.

How is that crazy? Are you their sponsor and regretting the investment?
As a cycling fan I like excellent riders going up high mountains. And not from a breakaway. Hence my dislike for such teams.
Or maybe you think you have everything figured out and you know what is best for everyone?

 

[ingsve]

How is that crazy? Are you their sponsor and regretting the investment?
As a cycling fan I like excellent riders going up high mountains. And not from a breakaway. Hence my dislike for such teams.
Or maybe you think you have everything figured out and you know what is best for everyone?

You're the one advocating changing things to just suit your own likes so you are the one who thinks you have it all figured out for everyone. I prefer the status quo. That way you can focus on the race days you prefer and leave the rest of us to enjoy the sport in its entirety.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I think the best should go head to head all the time, like in many other sports. F1 is often taken as an example and there all of the best ones go head to head all the time. Many other sports are similar and I cannot think of a sport that does what cycling currently does where the best can go full season without facing each other.

The OP said it would kill cycling. I do not agree. The sport would be changed for the better.

He can train well for a lesser race and get spotted and get the chance at the TdF the next year. It is not like Castrillo happens every year.

I do not agree. It is those teams that make the race anyway.

Meintjes could be a dom on one of the top teams.

There is some danger in going downhill, especially of you are chasing a group. I understand that danger is there and that is part of the sport. However, crashes like Basque or at the Tour with Rog are the ones I would like to be avoided. And those could be with smaller fields.

F1 is absolutely turgid and boring as a spectacle and has been for years. And I say that as a motorsport fan. Also I'd point out that actually, the best ones don't go head to head 'all the time' in many sports. There are plenty of sports where they theoretically could, like swimming or athletics, but where the athletes set their own calendar around certain bigger, more important events, they often prioritise big events. Hell, take something like cross-country skiing - there are plenty of 'the best' taking place in every race, but there are also discipline-based specialists who run a selective calendar and only enter certain races.

You say something like Castrillo is a rarity, that it doesn't happen every year, but it used to happen every year and then some. Take 2009 as an example. Pro Continental teams (the then equivalent of ProTeams) won TEN stages of the Giro d'Italia (di Luca's two have been removed, but one of them has been given to Stefano Garzelli who was also a ProContinental rider). Even if you remove Cervélo who were to all intents and purposes a top level team, there's still seven. Guys like Petacchi, Scarponi, Garzelli were all lining up for ProContinental teams and, crucially, rather than it being just another World Tour race, this was their entire year. Other riders may have been planning for the Tour, but for these guys, this was what their entire season was built around. None of these guys were going to the Tour or the Vuelta, so they went all-in for the Giro and enlivened it.

Now let's go to the Tour, and the 2009 Tour so one of the most dominance-friendly designs ever, with easy-to-control mountain stages and a long TTT that had a hugely disproportionate impact on the GC. Even there, Brice Feillu won the first mountaintop finish and wore the polka dots for a few days before Franco Pellizotti and Egoí Martínez' battle took it over. Cervélo were a wildcard team there too, and won a stage and the green jersey with Thor Hushovd, plus another stage with Heinrich Haussler. Then finally we have the Vuelta, where despite it being a pretty tame race throughout, one of the few things to enliven it was the ever-trying, albeit less than effective, Ezequiel Mosquera for Xacobeo-Galicia, because, like those Italian teams, he had built his whole season around the Vuelta a España. He would end up 5th on the GC, his teammate Gustavo César Veloso would also win a mountain stage on Xorret del Catí, and the team would win the Teams Classification as well after putting two men in the break that was allowed to gain 20 minutes or so on stage 15. Andalucía-Caja Sur would be limited to pointless breakaways for a second straight year (they had won a stage in 2007) but that was largely due to GC candidate Xavi Tondó getting injured in the stage 4 pileup. Vacansoleil made their GT debut as a wildcard team and won a stage with Borut Božič, and finished 12th on GC as well as being extremely visible throughout with Johnny Hoogerland.

And the thing is... that was normal. 5 of the top 10 of Milan-San Remo were on ProConti teams (two of which on the podium, but they were Cervélo riders). 3 of the top 10 of the Ronde were (one of which was Cervélo). Only one (Haussler) at Roubaix, but 2 at Liège (one Cervélo) and 2 more (neither being Cervélo) at Lombardia.

Of the eight biggest road races of the year in trade teams (the three GTs and the five Monuments), nine out of 21 ProContinental teams could contribute a top 10 finisher or a stage winner. And there were guys like Pozzovivo, Visconti, Tondó and van Hummel in those other teams too.

Nowadays, all those guys would not be racing to make the best of themselves and enlivening the races they targeted. They would be riding as domestiques for the riders better than themselves, and trying to actively prevent any enlivening of races. I'd like to see fewer World Tour teams and more wildcards, so that races can have different flavours and some good riders end up in teams where they need to go hell for leather for a smaller number of targets a year, rather than seeing five guys who could be leaders for other teams all riding in service of another guy who's already won 25 races that year, because not only is it better for their bank balance, but it's better for their own GC ambitions to come 5th being Jose Azevedo or Yaroslav Popovych to a modern day Lance than it is to come 5th being Ezequiel Mosquera or Domenico Pozzovivo.

Frankly, to me, that's not progress. That's a crying shame.