Giro d'Italia Giro Stage 5: Modena – Cattolica 175 km

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Will it be a sprint?


  • Total voters
    42
Is there any evidence that being next to the front lowers the risk of crashing in sprint stages (or any other kind of stage really)?

Sivakov crashed while he was in the first 30 positions of the bunch.
If you want to defend them that is fine, but I am surprised that you are asking this question TBH. Almost every coach in interviews and podcast keep repeating the same thing. "Be at the front". Statistically, I have no clue. But why they "ALL" tell you the same thing, must be for something.

Sivakov keeps crashing and crashing.
 
Just take the time at 5km except if there's an uphill finish. If there's an uphill sprint, cap the time loss that can happen due to a mechanical/crash
I suppose it's still likely to happen. If they took the time at 5k, chances are they'd just ride fast into the 5k. I would like for them to split it though on these sort of stages. Allow the GC lads to back off earlier and sprinters can do full out without as much riders around them.
 
Just take the time at 5km except if there's an uphill finish. If there's an uphill sprint, cap the time loss that can happen due to a mechanical/crash
There was a thread a while ago and that always my conclusion. It's the easiest thing to do and removes a large number of people from the hectic finishes.

I legitimately think the GC teams should just have a gentleman's agreement to neutralize things between them and hang out behind the sprint trains. The trend which started last decade of GC teams massing at the front to get their riders to the 3KM barrier has kind of led to this kind of arms race.

Sprinting and flat stages have already been marginalized enough, we don't need any more special treatment for climbers.
Unfortunately I think you probably need to regulate, but it would be nice if this were done.
 
If you want to defend them that is fine, but I am surprised that you are asking this question TBH. Almost every coach in interviews and podcast keep repeating the same thing. "Be at the front". Statistically, I have no clue. But why they "ALL" tell you the same thing, must be for something.

Sivakov keeps crashing and crashing.
I don't know either way in this case. But conventional wisdom has been shown to be nonsense many many times.
 
Reactions: SafeBet
Always the flat stages that weed out the GC contenders. Never fails. Silly crashes Just a lack of concentration.
The entire race counts. Flat sections of road aren't unnecessary bits to get through before you get to the w/KG battle that's the "real cycling", the race is about riding 3500~km.

It sucks but everyone racing for GC knows that these days are about staying safe and conserving energy.
 
If you want to defend them that is fine, but I am surprised that you are asking this question TBH. Almost every coach in interviews and podcast keep repeating the same thing. "Be at the front". Statistically, I have no clue. But why they "ALL" tell you the same thing, must be for something.

Sivakov keeps crashing and crashing.
I think it's safer at the front because often riders crash as result of other riders crashing. So if you are at the front there are less riders ahead of you as potencial cause for a crash.
 
It's a separate debate, but I think long, straight finishes with no bends can be just as dangerous because more teams can get involved. It's been discussed before but really they need to find a better way of getting the GC guys out of the way. It'll probably lead to more competitive sprinting too.
I think for GC guys it's safer. Unless of course if you are Sivakov and you crash even on a straight road with your team in front of you. Also there are many others things they could've done, taking a straight route is just one of them. Even riders think the route is BS. If you have a lot of road narrowing with many turns into a flat sprint you're asking for crashes.
View: https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/status/1392504877423734784

View: https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/status/1392508754424385539
 
I think for GC guys it's safer. Unless of course if you are Sivakov and you crash even on a straight road with your team in front of you. Also there are many others things they could've done, taking a straight route is just one of them. Even riders think the route is BS
View: https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/status/1392504877423734784

View: https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/status/1392508754424385539
They certainly need better protocols for road furniture than “dude waving a tiny pennant”.
 
Reactions: saunaking
I wish I could stop wishing Landa to get a big result, can't say I'm qualified as a real fan but of all the riders in the current peloton he's the one I hope can catch a break the most, just so one day he can retire without a grudge when the time come, so far has been so frustrating (Pinot has a monument, it's not really the same). Fck this stage.
 
Reactions: tobydawq
If you want to defend them that is fine, but I am surprised that you are asking this question TBH. Almost every coach in interviews and podcast keep repeating the same thing. "Be at the front". Statistically, I have no clue. But why they "ALL" tell you the same thing, must be for something.

Sivakov keeps crashing and crashing.
My own opinion is that you're told to get to the front cos the only danger isn't of you crashing. If you're at the back and there's a crash, you can be caught behind it and lose time due to that. The safest place is to be right at the front and no one in front of you of course but that's not realistic.

I'd say the danger of crashing is higher at the front than at the back (middle is probably higher). You're going faster, people around you are going faster which results in less time to react if anyone does go down around you.
 
Of course it's safer on the front. That's why everybody wants to be at the front. My maths is good enough to know that if 180 guys want to be among the first 20%, not each of them can belong to the first 20%. It's easy to say "well, you should have been at the front". If the road has constant bottle-necks, there will be riders dropping positions each time. And that's not just dependent on your own skills, it's also about how aggressive you are and where your teammates are.
Bottle-necks are part of the races, crashes are. But you don't need to force it.

And if you can only make a race financially possible if you endanger the athletes unnecessarily, there's something seriously wrong with the financing model.
 
I legitimately think the GC teams should just have a gentleman's agreement to neutralize things between them and hang out behind the sprint trains. The trend which started last decade of GC teams massing at the front to get their riders to the 3KM barrier has kind of led to this kind of arms race.

Sprinting and flat stages have already been marginalized enough, we don't need any more special treatment for climbers.
Good luck with gentlemen agreements when you can get ahead by not following them
 
Landa going down sucks, i hate that he's out of the race.
In retrospect he should have been on a teammate's wheel near the front.
Its the little things that you have to do to stay out of trouble and minimize chances of *** like this.
 
Reactions: Escarabajo
didn't have them before we saw the 3 km rule.

See the races pre 2005 when the 3 km rule came in. Any sprint lead outs were mainly done in the final km. Much less risk of a wreck going in the red for 30-60 seconds vs 3 minutes
2005 was kind of before the modernized sprint leadouts really started to get massive. Mid-00s were actually kind of anarachic as far as sprinting was concerned.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS