Crashes, what can be done?

[Divergence]

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.

Well, this is a public forum and I am expressing my ideas that could lead to better racing. I watch a lot of cycling, maybe even too much, the boring stages as well, but I frequently get disappointed when the best cannot go head to head because of injuries. I cannot really think of a sport where injuries are such a factor that it could make that the best ones do not go head to head over a period of years.

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.

I have been quite disillusioned with F1 the last 10 years or so but I just gave it as an example. In cross country skiing I like watching the best ones go up the final climb of the Tout de ski and I do not like watching Klaebo slowing things down when it goes up but it is what it is... Biathlon is a good example where the best ones go head to head all the time and there are no sprinters so that is good.

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.

The thing about cycling from 15 years ago is that it is not as fast nor as intense as nowadays. I love it when stages nowadays are full gas from start to finish. That has really been a positive development for cycling. In 2009 I remember the fall of Menchov in the last TT but, in general, the product nowadays is much better and much more exciting (not this year's Giro though ).

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.

I mentioned in some post before that I do not find the same intrigue when watching a breakaway compared to the GC group. A breakaway is merely a side show if it is even a show.... All these guys and moments that you mentioned are kinda there in my memory now that I read about them but it is not a showdown like that of Schleck vs Contador on the Tourmalet (was it) in 2010 ( just to reference a good race from that period). Let us not even mention Mosquera's exploits . To get back on topic, it used to be that the peloton would ride easy and let the breakaway go. And within the peloton there were so called patrons that weren't challenged by anyone for position. It used to be much more relaxed. But that does not make it a good race to watch. As I said I much prefer today's intensity. However, nowadays there is much less of the patron mentality (excellent) and there are many riders who think they can be at the front. Therefore, speed + incentive to take risk to be at the front means a higher probability for a crash to happen and when it happens it happens at or near the front so many riders are taken down. Therefore, my idea is to have less riders in the race to reduce this risk whilst preserving the aggressive full gas riding throughout the whole stage.

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.

I understand what you mean. I always root for the underdog and I like it when upsets happen. But if you go back and look at these races and not just the results I bet you that you will not find long rage risky attack, but a rather muted race where, e.g., Pozzovivo can stay with the best climbers and cling on until the end for 5th. That is not what I call exciting, I would much rather have attacks from semi-favorites early in the stage so that the main favorite is pressured.

 

[Divergence]

But why completely remove the chance of something like that even happening?

Because I would rather not have a Castrillo for one season then not seeing Rog compete at his best at the TdF for 4 years.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Well, this is a public forum and I am expressing my ideas that could lead to better racing. I watch a lot of cycling, maybe even too much, the boring stages as well, but I frequently get disappointed when the best cannot go head to head because of injuries. I cannot really think of a sport where injuries are such a factor that it could make that the best ones do not go head to head over a period of years.

I have been quite disillusioned with F1 the last 10 years or so but I just gave it as an example. In cross country skiing I like watching the best ones go up the final climb of the Tout de ski and I do not like watching Klaebo slowing things down when it goes up but it is what it is... Biathlon is a good example where the best ones go head to head all the time and there are no sprinters so that is good.

The thing about cycling from 15 years ago is that it is not as fast nor as intense as nowadays. I love it when stages nowadays are full gas from start to finish. That has really been a positive development for cycling. In 2009 I remember the fall of Menchov in the last TT but, in general, the product nowadays is much better and much more exciting (not this year's Giro though ).

I mentioned in some post before that I do not find the same intrigue when watching a breakaway compared to the GC group. A breakaway is merely a side show if it is even a show.... All these guys and moments that you mentioned are kinda there in my memory now that I read about them but it is not a showdown like that of Schleck vs Contador on the Tourmalet (was it) in 2010 ( just to reference a good race from that period). Let us not even mention Mosquera's exploits . To get back on topic, it used to be that the peloton would ride easy and let the breakaway go. And within the peloton there were so called patrons that weren't challenged by anyone for position. It used to be much more relaxed. But that does not make it a good race to watch. As I said I much prefer today's intensity. However, nowadays there is much less of the patron mentality (excellent) and there are many riders who think they can be at the front. Therefore, speed + incentive to take risk to be at the front means a higher probability for a crash to happen and when it happens it happens at or near the front so many riders are taken down. Therefore, my idea is to have less riders in the race to reduce this risk whilst preserving the aggressive full gas riding throughout the whole stage.

I understand what you mean. I always root for the underdog and I like it when upsets happen. But if you go back and look at these races and not just the results I bet you that you will not find long rage risky attack, but a rather muted race where, e.g., Pozzovivo can stay with the best climbers and cling on until the end for 5th. That is not what I call exciting, I would much rather have attacks from semi-favorites early in the stage so that the main favorite is pressured.

I invite you to rewatch the 2009 Giro and see who adds more to the race, Mick Rogers (on a WT team, finished 8th originally) or Stefano Garzelli (on a ProConti team, finished 7th originally). And Ezequiel Mosquera added a lot more to the race in coming 4th and 5th in 2008 and 2009's respective Vueltas than João Almeida and Adam Yates did to come 4th and 6th in 2024's Tour doing nothing but sitting on as many wheels as they could hold after Pogačar attacked, but hey, they were riding for a big team.

What you're advocating for is taking those riders who added to the race, and making them domestiques for the riders who were going to be at the front anyway, thus removing action and reducing the number of people trying to achieve something out of the race.

You know that those breakaway guys aren't producing action instead of the GC guys, right? The GC guys can still create action as well, and then you get more action. Plus, if those guys are riding for minor teams instead of serving as domestiques for the big guns, the GC guys have fewer domestiques meaning they are isolated sooner and they can produce more action too. And if they have to dose their efforts because they're worried about being isolated, then they will crash less, and be available to enter more races too.

It reminds me of a Henry Rollins anecdote about supporting Iron Maiden, saying that the problem is having to perform in front of an audience that is so blinded that it genuinely, truly believes that if he wasn't there, Iron Maiden would have gone on stage an hour earlier and played for an hour longer.

 

[Divergence]

I invite you to rewatch the 2009 Giro and see who adds more to the race, Mick Rogers (on a WT team, finished 8th originally) or Stefano Garzelli (on a ProConti team, finished 7th originally). And Ezequiel Mosquera added a lot more to the race in coming 4th and 5th in 2008 and 2009's respective Vueltas than João Almeida and Adam Yates did to come 4th and 6th in 2024's Tour doing nothing but sitting on as many wheels as they could hold after Pogačar attacked, but hey, they were riding for a big team.

What you're advocating for is taking those riders who added to the race, and making them domestiques for the riders who were going to be at the front anyway, thus removing action and reducing the number of people trying to achieve something out of the race.

You know that those breakaway guys aren't producing action instead of the GC guys, right? The GC guys can still create action as well, and then you get more action. Plus, if those guys are riding for minor teams instead of serving as domestiques for the big guns, the GC guys have fewer domestiques meaning they are isolated sooner and they can produce more action too. And if they have to dose their efforts because they're worried about being isolated, then they will crash less, and be available to enter more races too.

It reminds me of a Henry Rollins anecdote about supporting Iron Maiden, saying that the problem is having to perform in front of an audience that is so blinded that it genuinely, truly believes that if he wasn't there, Iron Maiden would have gone on stage an hour earlier and played for an hour longer.

As I said, 2009 racing was not full gas except for maybe the last climb and I like it nowadays that races are raced right from the beginning. Therefore, the 2009 argument is not valid for comparison. I remember Garzelli battling it out with Simoni on some climbs but both were inconsequential for the final GC (I might have this wrong). In any case any battle that is not for the overall GC cannot be as dramatic and as intriguing as a battle which is for the GC.
Regarding Mosquera, I remember rooting for him against Nibali in some Vuelta maybe 2010, but I was naive how advanced his training was.
When the race has been soft and there is a breakaway that will take the stage the action on the GC group is never as intense as it could have been if the stage win had been on the line. Also, the TV director shows the breakaway all the time (some Brice Fellieu or however one spells his name).
You are onto something when you say a GC favorite should try not he get isolated. Hence, my idea for smaller teams. There will be less controlling and more racing that way. More importantly less riders and fewer possibilities for devastating crashes.
And no, I do not agree that domestiques help the race by making it fun for longer. If I could help it I would always show up to the concert right when the main act takes the stage. I have little to no interest in opening act neither at concerts or at comedy shows.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

As I said, 2009 racing was not full gas except for maybe the last climb and I like it nowadays that races are raced right from the beginning. Therefore, the 2009 argument is not valid for comparison. I remember Garzelli battling it out with Simoni on some climbs but both were inconsequential for the final GC (I might have this wrong). In any case any battle that is not for the overall GC cannot be as dramatic and as intriguing as a battle which is for the GC.
Regarding Mosquera, I remember rooting for him against Nibali in some Vuelta maybe 2010, but I was naive how advanced his training was.
When the race has been soft and there is a breakaway that will take the stage the action on the GC group is never as intense as it could have been if the stage win had been on the line. Also, the TV director shows the breakaway all the time (some Brice Fellieu or however one spells his name).
You are onto something when you say a GC favorite should try not he get isolated. Hence, my idea for smaller teams. There will be less controlling and more racing that way. More importantly less riders and fewer possibilities for devastating crashes.
And no, I do not agree that domestiques help the race by making it fun for longer. If I could help it I would always show up to the concert right when the main act takes the stage. I have little to no interest in opening act neither at concerts or at comedy shows.

Cool, then just tune in for the last half hour when all the domestiques are done with and you can watch just the big names then, and let the rest of us enjoy our sport.

You post "I always root for the underdog" and then propose that we eradicate the underdog from existence. Would the 2010 Giro have been more fun if Arroyo hadn't gained those 13 minutes? What about O'Connor in the 2024 Vuelta? Would it have been a better race if Roglič got the red jersey a week earlier and then the whole race turned into him defending 1km uphill sprints against Enric Mas for two weeks?

 

[RedheadDane]

Because I would rather not have a Castrillo for one season than not seeing Rog compete at his best at the TdF for 4 years.

You know wild card riders don't cause all crashes, right?

 

[veganrob]

Ok, so let me get further off base then. This argument reminds me of the NCAA basketball tournament. March Madness. Best tournament in sports. IMO. 64 teams. Some people are advocating only take the top 16 so there are no upsets. Not me. I love to see the lower seeds spring a big upset and make a little run. They never win the tournament but so what. It means the big teams better come to play every game, if not, they risk losing it. No second chances. And I love the early rounds the best. Yeah! And my team, MSU Spartans have had their share of early round eliminations.

 

[AmRacer]

Speed limit 5 mph

 

[ingsve]

I like it nowadays that races are raced right from the beginning.

You do realize that the reason races are ridden full gas from the beginning is because people are trying to get in the breakaway right? But if you reduce the field to 100 riders then there will be hardly any riders left who are there to go in breakaways and the peloton will just let one or two riders go and then they'll take it easy until the late parts of the stage. So that's the opposite of what you want.

 

[Divergence]

Cool, then just tune in for the last half hour when all the domestiques are done with and you can watch just the big names then, and let the rest of us enjoy our sport.

You post "I always root for the underdog" and then propose that we eradicate the underdog from existence. Would the 2010 Giro have been more fun if Arroyo hadn't gained those 13 minutes? What about O'Connor in the 2024 Vuelta? Would it have been a better race if Roglič got the red jersey a week earlier and then the whole race turned into him defending 1km uphill sprints against Enric Mas for two weeks?

It is wrong from you to assume that I do not enjoy the sport. Au contraire. However, it often happens that we are not able to see the best go head to head due to crashes and injuries. Therefore, my solution to remedy the problem is to reduce the amount of riders during a race.

I do not mind if a less capable rider gains time due to tactics. I even enjoy it. All I am saying is that breakaways where the best guy is 1 hour down on GC are not as fun for me as watching the main GC group fighting it out on the climbs.

 

[Divergence]

You do realize that the reason races are ridden full gas from the beginning is because people are trying to get in the breakaway right? But if you reduce the field to 100 riders then there will be hardly any riders left who are there to go in breakaways and the peloton will just let one or two riders go and then they'll take it easy until the late parts of the stage. So that's the opposite of what you want.

This is true. However, breakaways have existed for many decades but have always been "let go" and not raced until recently. This is because nowadays the overall level of the riders is much higher and because there are more tactical opportunities.

If the field is smaller the same will happen, just with the main guy having to do some chasing himself and other main guy having to do some attacking themselves. Also it would be harder to distinguish between a breakaway and the peloton.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It is wrong from you to assume that I do not enjoy the sport. Au contraire. However, it often happens that we are not able to see the best go head to head due to crashes and injuries. Therefore, my solution to remedy the problem is to reduce the amount of riders during a race.

I do not mind if a less capable rider gains time due to tactics. I even enjoy it. All I am saying is that breakaways where the best guy is 1 hour down on GC are not as fun for me as watching the main GC group fighting it out on the climbs.

I'm not saying you don't enjoy the sport. I'm saying that if the bit you enjoy is the bit when the big guns are fighting each other, try watching only that bit, rather than taking away the bits that other people enjoy.

Also if the best and strongest riders are going all out all the time as you request, there isn't the scope to gain time due to tactics, because if everybody's going 100% all the time, it's a pure power test. And it's not like the GC guys don't fight it out on the climb if there is a breakaway, it's not an either-or situation. Like the Henry Rollins/Iron Maiden comparison, it's not like the GC guys are going to start attacking each other before the climb begins if the breakaway gets to the start of the climb before they do. You can still see the GC guys attack each other for the same amount of time, you've just got an additional battle for the stage win or for KOM points to contest. If there is nobody strong enough to be relevant in a mountain stage breakaway, then blame the concentration of so many strong riders into so few teams that the type of rider that used to be a threat in those breaks either a) isn't allowed up the road anymore, or b) is one of the guys being paid as a helper in order to not let riders like himself up the road anymore. Smaller teams would be good for racing. Fewer teams would not.

Unless your point is against the Giro cameramen showing the wrong thing, which would be fair but in which case we just get better cameramen and the problem is solved.

Besides, from a safety point of view, deciding to get rid of breakaway riders isn't going to improve safety in the péloton because the riders in the breakaway aren't in the péloton anyway, they're in the break.

 

[Divergence]

I'm not saying you don't enjoy the sport. I'm saying that if the bit you enjoy is the bit when the big guns are fighting each other, try watching only that bit, rather than taking away the bits that other people enjoy.

Also if the best and strongest riders are going all out all the time as you request, there isn't the scope to gain time due to tactics, because if everybody's going 100% all the time, it's a pure power test. And it's not like the GC guys don't fight it out on the climb if there is a breakaway, it's not an either-or situation. Like the Henry Rollins/Iron Maiden comparison, it's not like the GC guys are going to start attacking each other before the climb begins if the breakaway gets to the start of the climb before they do. You can still see the GC guys attack each other for the same amount of time, you've just got an additional battle for the stage win or for KOM points to contest. If there is nobody strong enough to be relevant in a mountain stage breakaway, then blame the concentration of so many strong riders into so few teams that the type of rider that used to be a threat in those breaks either a) isn't allowed up the road anymore, or b) is one of the guys being paid as a helper in order to not let riders like himself up the road anymore. Smaller teams would be good for racing. Fewer teams would not.

Unless your point is against the Giro cameramen showing the wrong thing, which would be fair but in which case we just get better cameramen and the problem is solved.

Besides, from a safety point of view, deciding to get rid of breakaway riders isn't going to improve safety in the péloton because the riders in the breakaway aren't in the péloton anyway, they're in the break.

If there is a breakaway the GC guys are less likely to attack. That is a fact.
If we select only those breakaways where there are good riders who pose a little treat in the GC then your analysis is correct. However, it often happens that a bunch on below average riders go up the road, even on well designed stages and those finishes are not as spectacular for me.
Getting back to the topic at hand, all of this would not even be an issue if there were no crashes. In that case I would say the sport is fine as it is. However, there are quite a few crashes and the best riders are often affected. In order to reduce the probability of this I suggest smaller number of riders.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

If there is a breakaway the GC guys are less likely to attack. That is a fact.
If we select only those breakaways where there are good riders who pose a little treat in the GC then your analysis is correct. However, it often happens that a bunch on below average riders go up the road, even on well designed stages and those finishes are not as spectacular for me.
Getting back to the topic at hand, all of this would not even be an issue if there were no crashes. In that case I would say the sport is fine as it is. However, there are quite a few crashes and the best riders are often affected. In order to reduce the probability of this I suggest smaller number of riders.

But why are the riders in the breakaway any relevance to the crashes affecting the best riders if the best riders are in the GC group, not the breakaway?

If you want to reduce the crashes in the péloton, reduce the size of teams in races, not the number of teams in races.

 

[Divergence]

But why are the riders in the breakaway any relevance to the crashes affecting the best riders if the best riders are in the GC group, not the breakaway?

If you want to reduce the crashes in the péloton, reduce the size of teams in races, not the number of teams in races.

But that is exactly what I was saying earlier. Reduce the size of teams. Maybe 5 riders each.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But that is exactly what I was saying earlier. Reduce the size of teams. Maybe 5 riders each.

You said yesterday you have no use for the lesser teams.

 

[Divergence]

You said yesterday you have no use for the lesser teams.

At the moment they are pack fodder. If the number of riders per team is reduced there is a chance someone from those teams might be useful. All in all I enjoy the best people racing up mountains. Injuries prevent this. Less people in races means less devastating crashes which means less injuries, thus fulfillment of my original desire. I will stop writing now .

 

[Libertine Seguros]

At the moment they are pack fodder. If the number of riders per team is reduced there is a chance someone from those teams might be useful. All in all I enjoy the best people racing up mountains. Injuries prevent this. Less people in races means less devastating crashes which means less injuries, thus fulfillment of my original desire. I will stop writing now .

You need to reduce the squad sizes to match then, so that the UAEs and Jumbos of this world don't just stockpile talent to stop other teams having them, like we see so often in football.

 

[Divergence]

You need to reduce the squad sizes to match then, so that the UAEs and Jumbos of this world don't just stockpile talent to stop other teams having them, like we see so often in football.

Yes, I would agree to squad size reduction as well.

 

[Cookster15]

A very timely story about a very timely UCI race incidents study.

The UCI race incident database, collated with the Ghent University in Belgium, registered 497 incidents during the 2024 season.

'Rider errors represent 35% of race incidents' - UCI and SafeR reveal 2024 crash statistics, delay major safety improvements

No decisions on sprint rules, gear restrictions, team radios, rim height and handlebar widths

www.cyclingnews.com

• 24% increase in incidents compared to 2022
• Incidents increasing in the final 40km of races.
• 58% of incidents occur in the final 40km.

 

[AmRacer]

A very timely story about a very timely UCI race incidents study.

'Rider errors represent 35% of race incidents' - UCI and SafeR reveal 2024 crash statistics, delay major safety improvements

No decisions on sprint rules, gear restrictions, team radios, rim height and handlebar widths

www.cyclingnews.com

• 24% increase in incidents compared to 2022
• Incidents increasing in the final 40km of races.
• 58% of incidents occur in the final 40km.

Ban the final 40 km.🤔

 

[RedheadDane]

Ban the final 40 km.🤔

Just. Randomly teleport them to the finish!

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

Ok, so let me get further off base then. This argument reminds me of the NCAA basketball tournament. March Madness. Best tournament in sports. IMO. 64 teams. Some people are advocating only take the top 16 so there are no upsets. Not me. I love to see the lower seeds spring a big upset and make a little run. They never win the tournament but so what. It means the big teams better come to play every game, if not, they risk losing it. No second chances. And I love the early rounds the best. Yeah! And my team, MSU Spartans have had their share of early round eliminations.

I won't dive in too much since it's a cycling forum but who the *** doesn't want to see upsets...
The best upsets in the history of sport come in either basketball, cycling or boxing...

 

[Cookster15]

I won't dive in too much since it's a cycling forum but who the *** doesn't want to see upsets...
The best upsets in the history of sport come in either basketball, cycling or boxing...

Agree upsets are great. But I disagree the best upsets are in basketball, cycling or boxing. Other sports have upsets and what is “best” is a subjective and difficult to define measure anyway.

 

[ingsve]

Agree upsets are great. But I disagree the best upsets are in basketball, cycling or boxing. Other sports have upsets and what is “best” is a subjective and difficult to define measure anyway.

Ya, I can think of a lot of sports with spectacular upsets that can compete for the "best upsets". Biathlon is such a sport since it sort of has built in it that any favorites can suddenly mess up their shooting and get extra round or penalty minutes and then suddenly some unexpected skier shoots flawlessly and gets a surprise win.

Any combat sport is pretty much set up for surprise results, including boxing of course and combat sports can often have very surprising upsets with someone getting the right punch or the right throw at the right time out of seemingly nothing.

Football/soccer also has its history of memorable upsets, Cup games comes first to mind but also things like Leicesters Premier League win is stuff of legends.