Crashes, what can be done?

[AmRacer]

@Pozzovivo

Changes implemented likely shouldn't kill the ethos of this sport. And even with 90 riders i do feel that there would still be some bunch riding in the middle of the stages. What comes to mind is maybe one could choose to not ride irrationally over there? But here i guess one has to understand this are humans, athletes at their prime, some power play is to be expected. So all in all if 9 riders would be riding, instead of 180, we would still get some of that.

Half of the peloton would be out of job.

 

[Pozzovivo]

@Pozzovivo

Changes implemented likely shouldn't kill the ethos of this sport. And even with 90 riders i do feel that there would still be some bunch riding in the middle of the stages. What comes to mind is maybe one could choose to not ride irrationally over there? But here i guess one has to understand this are humans, athletes at their prime, some power play is to be expected. So all in all if 9 riders would be riding, instead of 180, we would still get some of that.

Responded to exactly this comment a year ago. It would help a lot and still keep many of the same aspects that are relevant today. The price of being in the exact middle position is enormous in 180 group vs 90 group. A lot of riders do only this in grand tours. They fight for position.

Almost same wording. It wouldn't kill anything but the worst riders contract. Which sucks for them. Teams of five to six is riders are plentiful to maintain many of the same dynamics. Look at Ineos 23 giro for instance.

Anyway

 

[Pozzovivo]

Half of the peloton would be out of job.

I know, most likely, yes. Why should there be 1000 and not 500 people living to ride a bike in the first place? We don't need 200 cars in formula one. In fact, that would lead to crashes...

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Pozzovivo

Would it make that much difference, though? Having 90 in the middle of the stage, riding in a bunch. They still wouldn't fit.

 

[Pozzovivo]

@Pozzovivo

Would it make that much difference, though? Having 90 in the middle of the stage, riding in a bunch. They still wouldn't fit.

YES it would make a huge difference! And they would fit a crazy amount better than 180...The dynamics is mostly the reason. Many riders and are trying to be at the front because the cost of being at the back is so high with huge pelotons. Only the Yates brothers understood this and made a different choice. Credit to them.

 

[CyclistAbi]

@Pozzovivo

I agree that it would likely made a huge difference at the end of bunch sprint stages, so i guess it could be tried out there first. Before reducing the peloton to 90 riders and doing such test. Realistically what do you feel has bigger chance of being tested out first? As for potentially reducing or increasing the number of riders. This are i guess always options but not necessarily to be safety orientated ones. Having less riders would statistically likely reduce the number of crashes, overall. But as said relatively speaking i don't see on how 90 riders split in the teams would fit any better then 180 riders. On occasions the bunch would still form and they still wouldn't fit. So for this mid stage bunches i feel that other solutions would need to be implemented it's just that currently nobody has put too much thought into it and hence solutions seem sparse. I am rather sure that solutions exist, to improve rider safety when riding in a bunch, regardless of the number. After bunch sprint finale gets cleaned up, of bloat, then we can try to do something about that too, addressing bunches in the middle of the stages. On what possible solutions are without changing the sport too much if at all.

 

[Pozzovivo]

Speeds and number of riders jostling for position in sprint finishes are definitely an issue. Maybe limit the gearing - we now have 10 tooth rear sprockets? 53/12 was enough. But most high profile crashes of recent years were not sprints - e.g. Froome, Vingegaard and Pogacar (LBL). Fabio Jakobsen an obvious exception.

I think it was Dan Martin the british-irish rider who got that question, about gearing, on the cycling podcast. And he coudn't be less generous to that suggestion. I agree with Daniel Martin. What happens if you limit gears but all else equal. Yes they go slower in some sections but then... "Let's play who breaks last"... Let's see who can dive bomb who...

It may have a very marginal impact.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I mostly read in this "gear" debates as lets at least do something, compared to doing nothing at all. So in this sense even such things are i guess progress. Regardless of their effectiveness. But this honestly is something to address at the end, on where the bulk of the work was already done and you are just fine tuning some details, that last percent or so. Considering the volume of crashes and resulting injuries currently ongoing, the cog, having one teeth more or less, that is a non factor when it comes to improving things substantially.

 

[jakasspeech11]

It’s definitely a step in the right direction to see the UCI moving towards official standards. Having a clear framework is usually what's needed for manufacturers to really commit to mass production, so hopefully, we see this tech becoming standard sooner rather than later.

 

[Pozzovivo]

@Pozzovivo

I agree that it would likely made a huge difference at the end of bunch sprint stages, so i guess it could be tried out there first. Before reducing the peloton to 90 riders and doing such test. Realistically what do you feel has bigger chance of being tested out first? As for potentially reducing or increasing the number of riders. This are i guess always options but not necessarily to be safety orientated ones. Having less riders would statistically likely reduce the number of crashes, overall. But as said relatively speaking i don't see on how 90 riders split in the teams would fit any better then 180 riders. On occasions the bunch would still form and they still wouldn't fit. So for this mid stage bunches i feel that other solutions would need to be implemented it's just that currently nobody has put too much thought into it and hence solutions seem sparse. I am rather sure that solutions exist, to improve rider safety when riding in a bunch, regardless of the number. After bunch sprint finale gets cleaned up, of bloat, then we can try to do something about that too, addressing bunches in the middle of the stages. On what possible solutions are without changing the sport too much if at all.

I think you’re raising reasonable questions, but I also think your main objection is built on a misunderstanding of what “fewer riders” is supposed to fix. Let me respond properly for once.

You get a clean test of this in every breakaway stage or reduced bunch sprint. The peloton splits in three. Break, GC group with helpers, and dropped riders. Almost never dangerous stage. Basically never a mass crash. This would be more frequent with fewer riders for dynamic reasons.

You're right of course, apeloton will always be longer than the road is wide, whether it’s 90 riders or 180. The real problem is how many riders are forced into the same positional contest at the same time. And why are they?

Crashes mostly happen when two things coincide: limited road space and a big incentive to be near the front (this also increases speed). In those moments, a huge number of riders all try to move into the same top positions because being 60th instead of 20th can be race ending in terms of result. That is what produces the “washing machine,” the chopping, the overlapping wheels, and then the big domino crashes.

Reducing the field size changes that mechanism in a way that “other solutions” often do not. With fewer riders, you don’t just reduce crowding a little. You reduce the number of people who feel they must be top 20 right now, and you reduce the number of bodies and bikes available to be swept up when something goes wrong. Even if a bunch still forms mid stage, it behaves differently. Fewer simultaneous move ups, fewer lead out trains and positioning domestiques, less accordion effect, fewer chain reactions. And the key thing is that big peloton crashes are not linear. They are contagion events. One touch of wheels becomes five riders, then fifteen, then thirty because there is no space or time to react. That cascade potential grows with field size. So the effect of reducing riders is very plausibly disproportionate, not just “half the riders equals half the injuries.”

Of course other measures matter too. Sprint regulations, barriers, course design, enforcement, equipment, all of that can help at the margins. But a lot of these are downstream fixes: they try to manage the consequences of a high pressure environment rather than reducing the pressure itself. Field size is an upstream lever. It directly lowers exposure, reduces interactions, and reduces the intensity of the positional battle that creates risk in the first place.

So yes, start with sprint stages if you want a trial. But the “90 riders still won’t fit so it doesn’t help” argument doesn’t hold. The benefit is that fewer riders are compelled to fight for the same limited space, and when something inevitably happens, fewer riders get taken out in a cascade.

 

[CyclistAbi]

So basically we do seem to agree that with implemented measures, such as neutralising last couple of km of sprint stages, we can take the initiative away, for most riders to be there, hence addressing most of the concerns you raised in term of the sprint stage finale.

As for mid stage bunch forming and riding here i feel that things might not be as linear as you wrote. I feel that what you wrote would still apply, at least relatively speaking, for that remaining 90 riders left. So ultimately even if we reduce the peloton to 90 riders some new solutions, that currently don't exist, would still need to be figured out and implemented, for the remaining riders.

One solution could be to penalise prolonged bunch riding with GC seconds lost. So an attempt to move forward would not in any way be obstructed, simply riding in a bunch for prolonged period of time on the other hand would. This might make riding more aggressive as a result as it becomes difficult to block attempts. But anyway, lets clean up the ends of sprint stages first, remove the riders with no initiative to be there. Much less work needed. It even happened already in the past, due to some circumstances invoking it.

 

[Divergence]

I think reducing the gearing will not make any difference at all. Reducing the peloton size will make a difference. But I think the best solution is to just eliminate sprint stages in the GTs and in the big 7 week races and possibly reduce the number of stages and/or increase the number of rest days (sprint stages are more or less rest days where riders roll the dice not to crash). Let the sprinters go to the track or in some races no-one watches anyway and let us have 10 stage races where the who is who are always competing.

 

[CyclistAbi]

But I think the best solution is to just eliminate sprint stages in the GTs and in the big 7 week races and possibly reduce the number of stages and/or increase the number of rest days (sprint stages are more or less rest days where riders roll the dice not to crash). Let the sprinters go to the track or in some races no-one watches anyway and let us have 10 stage races where the who is who are always competing.

So eliminate them not due to safety but as you don't feel the need to watch them? Plus how do you eliminate sprint stages? It's not possible, then a couple of a bit skinnier contenders will end up doing the same, specialise in sprint finales on i guess a ramp and beyond. Elite sprinting IMHO belongs to pro road peloton, just like TT and beyond. Not all people liking one or the other discipline IMHO shouldn't open the door to dropping something altogether being a viable option. I for example don't feel gravel belong in pro road peloton but i don't have any expectations of dropping it altogether. It will en up in there one way or another.

 

[Divergence]

So eliminate them not due to safety but as you don't feel the need to watch them? Plus how do you eliminate sprint stages? It's not possible, then a couple of a bit skinnier contenders will end up doing the same, specialise in sprint finales on i guess a ramp and beyond.

Sure I do not find watching sprint stages fascinating. But the reason to eliminate them is because most of the bad crashes happen during sprint finales. And I thing those are the crashes we do not need at all. IF someone crashes on a descend or by shear bad luck then OK, that is the sport.
Finally, is someone specializes in an uphill sprint, that should not be a problem because the stage would have been selective enough so that there is not 150 people gong in the last corner fighting for position.

 

[Pozzovivo]

So basically we do seem to agree that with implemented measures, such as neutralising last couple of km of sprint stages, we can take the initiative away, for most riders to be there, hence addressing most of the concerns you raised in term of the sprint stage finale.

As for mid stage bunch forming and riding here i feel that things might not be as linear as you wrote. I feel that what you wrote would still apply, at least relatively speaking, for that remaining 90 riders left. So ultimately even if we reduce the peloton to 90 riders some new solutions, that currently don't exist, would still need to be figured out and implemented, for the remaining riders.

One solution could be to penalise prolonged bunch riding with GC seconds lost. So an attempt to move forward would not in any way be obstructed, simply riding in a bunch for prolonged period of time on the other hand would. This might make riding more aggressive as a result as it becomes difficult to block attempts. But anyway, lets clean up the ends of sprint stages first, remove the riders with no initiative to be there. Much less work needed. It even happened already in the past, due to some circumstances invoking it.

No we don’t agree in general but on some specific. Bunching in the middle is not the problem also. No weird fixes the sport even more convoluted. Making gc time neutral on say 25 km before the sprint will make a difference. We agree there but it also makes the sport even weirder and arbitrary. The most important effect is that the current dynamic is replaced with a much more open race as Belgian ChatGPT flat leadouts and support riders that are only there too pull against breaks and position will be replaced with guys going on the attack and have a chance of succeeding much more often.

 

[Divergence]

So eliminate them not due to safety but as you don't feel the need to watch them? Plus how do you eliminate sprint stages? It's not possible, then a couple of a bit skinnier contenders will end up doing the same, specialise in sprint finales on i guess a ramp and beyond. Elite sprinting IMHO belongs to pro road peloton, just like TT and beyond. Not all people liking one or the other discipline IMHO shouldn't open the door to dropping something altogether being a viable option. I for example don't feel gravel belong in pro road peloton but i don't have any expectations of dropping it altogether. It will en up in there one way or another.

So you edited the post a little. IMHO elite sprinting belongs to the track. Also, while we are at it, TT should be done on road bikes. I do not really see the need for a special bike just for that event. Regarding gravel, I also do not think it should be in the major races. Just hilly and mountainous routes and let the best rider win. Of course, there should be a some possibility for tactics, i.e., sending teammates in breakaways (that is why I would rather see flat stages expunged rather then reducing the size of the peloton).