• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team. Thanks!

Giro descending competition

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 30, 2014
7,060
2
0
Visit site
Re:

RedheadDane said:
I think Stef Clement put it very nicely:

Sometimes it's best to ignore when someone else comes up with a truely stupid idea and let it fade out in silence.

Simply don't contest it. Let it be one of those competitions that riders win purely by chance. (After all; how many riders actively contest the Fairplay competition?)

Though I'm still a bit confused about how it'll work. "On the day" prize for those stages which have a timed descend + an overall prize at the end?
500€ for the winner of every single "segment" and 5,000 for the winner of the overall winner (it will be a points classification).
That's not exactly a lot of money, you get more for a single 2nd place on a stage, expecially if the split it up between team members and staff like the usual price money.
 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gir...competition-met-with-resistance-from-peloton/
Giro d'Italia descending competition met with resistance from peloton

Riders call the idea 'stupid' and 'life-threatening'

Trek-Segafredo’s Jasper Stuyven, who will ride the Giro d’Italia this month, was particularly vocal about it. He wrote on Twitter, “Seriously?! If this true you should be ashamed.. aren't there already enough crashes? Clearly you only care about sensation.”
 
Jul 6, 2016
599
1
0
Visit site
People who are moaning about this maybe shouldn't care about cycling at all. Bunch sprints anyone? Can't help it but I like the idea even more since I see so many people crying about it.
 
Again, I'm just glad this is a competition where the riders have the ultimate power. Nobody can force them to even care about the competition.
At the end of the day it probably/hopefully won't change much. Riders have been going fast downhill for years, and it's only logical that someone would have to be the fastest.
 
Feb 23, 2011
618
0
0
Visit site
Its so dangerous to have a descending competition

As is:

Holding onto cars
Sticky bottling
Sitting so close to cars they get a tyre mark on their rear bumper
Weaving in and out of cars
Bunny hopping onto pavements, roundabouts etc
Speeding team cars on motorways and race convoys
Bike racing itself
Etc etc etc

Riders are happy to partake in dangerous activities so long as they are the ones putting themselves in danger.

If they don't want a descending competition then don't compete in it.
 
B_Ugli said:
Its so dangerous to have a descending competition

As is:

Holding onto cars
Sticky bottling
Sitting so close to cars they get a tyre mark on their rear bumper
Weaving in and out of cars
Bunny hopping onto pavements, roundabouts etc
Speeding team cars on motorways and race convoys
Bike racing itself
Etc etc etc

Riders are happy to partake in dangerous activities so long as they are the ones putting themselves in danger.

If they don't want a descending competition then don't compete in it.
don't forget crossing a railway with the train incoming.
 
Re:

Googolplex said:
F1 drivers are protected by cars and run-off areas.
And yet they know they can still die if they push it too much (as happened in the past). But they are pros and know their limits. In the end, they care about life more than about a win.

Do we really believe riders will risk more to win this competition than how they risked to win a stage or the whole Giro?
 
Yeah, this really is a dumb idea. And it contravenes some of the basic norms of our sport - think about why we have the @st rule for groups, to stop racing within the back of groups - attacks come from the front not from the back that's basic stuff.

It could be that noone specifically targets this prize, but by the nature of everyone having to complete the course someone is going to be the leader after stage 8 and he and his team will have to make a decision about whether they like being on the Giro podium or not... and the best we can hope for is that someone is a GC rider since they'll have bigger fish to fry and will anyway be racing from the front at the key moments. If it's a mid-pack guy then now the other mid-pack guys have to watch not just the road in front, but also for overtaking maneuvers from behind that have nothing to do with the actual race situation. It's not like opting out of a sprint competition by drifting back out of the way.
 
Re: Re:

SafeBet said:
Googolplex said:
F1 drivers are protected by cars and run-off areas.
And yet they know they can still die if they push it too much (as happened in the past). But they are pros and know their limits. In the end, they care about life more than about a win.

This is exactly wrong. Formula 1 did not get safer because drivers learnt to take less risks. It got safer because safety measures were forced on the sport that made the risks drivers, as borderline insane competitors, insist on taking less likely to have truly catastrophic consequences. If cars and circuits hadn't been changed there would still be very regular deaths because there will always be racers who will take unwise risks to win. Altering a sport so as to incentivise more potentially disastrous risk taking is barbaric.
 
Re:

VO2 Max said:
It could be that noone specifically targets this prize, but by the nature of everyone having to complete the course someone is going to be the leader after stage 8 and he and his team will have to make a decision about whether they like being on the Giro podium or not... and the best we can hope for is that someone is a GC rider since they'll have bigger fish to fry and will anyway be racing from the front at the key moments. If it's a mid-pack guy then now the other mid-pack guys have to watch not just the road in front, but also for overtaking maneuvers from behind that have nothing to do with the actual race situation. It's not like opting out of a sprint competition by drifting back out of the way.

Of course someone is gonna lead it after stage 8, just like there has always been someone clocking the fastest time on the descends, even without a competition.
And since one of the favourites for the competition could very well be called Nibali - and other favourites, ie the sprinters, might not even make it to Milan - I'd say he probably has a much bigger fish to fry. Things should go really badly for Nibali to start targeting such a minor competition.
 
Stupid idea, and not just because it is dangerous. Most likely, each segment will have totally different, and entirely random, winners. Unless someone specifically targets this competition, which I doubt, the race situation will dictate who wins each time. Who gets dropped on a climb, who has a mechanical and needs to chase back, who's trying to establish a breakaway etc.
It would be a bit embarassing for the organiser to have a lot of guys tied at the points given for one "stage win", which could well happen.
 
Re: Re:

RedheadDane said:
Of course someone is gonna lead it after stage 8, just like there has always been someone clocking the fastest time on the descends, even without a competition.
And since one of the favourites for the competition could very well be called Nibali - and other favourites, ie the sprinters, might not even make it to Milan - I'd say he probably has a much bigger fish to fry. Things should go really badly for Nibali to start targeting such a minor competition.

Thing is, Stage 8 is a transitional stage with the first Strava-descending-segment after a very steady mid-stage climb - looks too late to be break-formation-critical and too early to be the stage finale. So finding the best descender there is a bit of a random number generator. If the random numbers it comes up with are mediocre mid-pack guys and they feel like contesting a Grand Tour competition all the way to Milan then there can be carnage in the next timed descents.

If this competition has to exist it should at least start with a descent where the racing will actually be on.
 
Re: Re:

Zinoviev Letter said:
This is exactly wrong. Formula 1 did not get safer because drivers learnt to take less risks. It got safer because safety measures were forced on the sport that made the risks drivers, as borderline insane competitors, insist on taking less likely to have truly catastrophic consequences. If cars and circuits hadn't been changed there would still be very regular deaths because there will always be racers who will take unwise risks to win. Altering a sport so as to incentivise more potentially disastrous risk taking is barbaric.
I never suggested the sport got safer because drivers learnt to take less risks.

And again, nobody is gonna risk his life for this competition if he didn't risk it to win a stage or a Giro d'Italia.
 
Re: Re:

SafeBet said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
This is exactly wrong. Formula 1 did not get safer because drivers learnt to take less risks. It got safer because safety measures were forced on the sport that made the risks drivers, as borderline insane competitors, insist on taking less likely to have truly catastrophic consequences. If cars and circuits hadn't been changed there would still be very regular deaths because there will always be racers who will take unwise risks to win. Altering a sport so as to incentivise more potentially disastrous risk taking is barbaric.
I never suggested the sport got safer because drivers learnt to take less risks.

And again, nobody is gonna risk his life for this competition if he didn't risk it to win a stage or a Giro d'Italia.

You suggested that Formula 1 drivers don't get killed every few races any more because "they are pros and know their limits" and "value their lives more than a win". In fact the history of Formula 1 shows that professional racers will precisely take insane risks for an advantage, that they regularly don't make sensible choices between their lives and the possibility of winning, and that the only way to stop them killing themselves was to externally change the nature of the risks through safety measures to cars and circuits.

Every time the peloton descends at speed, they are risking their lives. Adding incentives to be reckless is itself reckless. It only takes one idiot to decide that they have a chance of standing on the Giro podium every day to significantly increase the risks for all around him.