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

Page 13 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Will it be a sprint?


  • Total voters
    42
Jul 2, 2019
172
174
1,030
I think the time for talking is past. For safety, the UCI should neutralise sprint stages for last 5-10 k in the smaller races. Get the data and see if it works. If it works then implement the same for GTs by next year. Year after year too many broken bones and too much work/effort is going to waste.
You realize leadout guys and sprinters will still be involved, right.

I don't want to be cynical but it seems like leadout guys, sprinters, etc crash all the time and it's part of the sport, but a GC rider gets taken out and suddenly the sport is broken. It's a stage race, at some point the GC riders need to do the flat stages too.
 
Reactions: spalco
De Gendt said his team car told him about 10 times on the approach about the obstruction in the road so I would assume other team cars would have done the same for their riders. If there was a flag man at that obstruction then it's gotta be rider error or team car not informing rider.
The problem is that in crowded peloton sometimes you have nowhere to go. It's not like you can maneuver freely.
 
You realize leadout guys and sprinters will still be involved, right.

I don't want to be cynical but it seems like leadout guys, sprinters, etc crash all the time and it's part of the sport, but a GC rider gets taken out and suddenly the sport is broken. It's a stage race, at some point the GC riders need to do the flat stages too.
It helps those guys though too by removing other cyclists from around them. If you take GC ahead of the finish, any GC contenders and their teams sit up surely so you half the peleton at least meaning sprinters and lead outs have far less competition on the road for space
 
You realize leadout guys and sprinters will still be involved, right.

I don't want to be cynical but it seems like leadout guys, sprinters, etc crash all the time and it's part of the sport, but a GC rider gets taken out and suddenly the sport is broken. It's a stage race, at some point the GC riders need to do the flat stages too.
A sprinter winning a stage in week 1 and crashing out has had a successful GT. A GC rider crashing out in week 1 has not.
 
Reactions: jflemaire
I think the time for talking is past. For safety, the UCI should neutralise sprint stages for last 5-10 k in the smaller races. Get the data and see if it works. If it works then implement the same for GTs by next year. Year after year too many broken bones and too much work/effort is going to waste.
Extending the 3km rule to 5km in stages such as today wouldn't be a radical change, and would help I think. Landa's crash today was at around 4km.
 
Man what a crappy stage with all these crashes of GC favorites. Just for a mostly boring sprint finish at the end. Not worth it in my opinion, there has to be a better way for GC teams to get over the designated sprint stages, than getting in danger trying to share the road with the high speed trains of sprinter teams.
 
Last edited:
May 11, 2009
189
4
8,835
3km rule is meaningless if you crash bad enough to be out of the race. The /safest/ thing is to be chilling at the back and only be held up by crashes in front, then you’re @st no problems. But then the risk is a non crash split in the bunch... they’re big boys and can make that sporting decision.
 
Jul 2, 2019
172
174
1,030
3km rule is meaningless if you crash bad enough to be out of the race. The /safest/ thing is to be chilling at the back and only be held up by crashes in front, then you’re @st no problems. But then the risk is a non crash split in the bunch... they’re big boys and can make that sporting decision.
like I said, I don't know if there's a "big boy" team in this race with enough sway but these guys really should decide among themselves to stop placing their GC guys right in the leadout train game. It's been an arms race since that practice started last decade.
 
Only if you assume a uniform distribution throughout the bunch of how likely it is for a crash to happen.
Only if you assume a uniform distribution throughout the bunch of how likely it is for a crash to happen.
I think any slight increase at the front which might happen during the final stages is unlikely to outweigh increased risks by sitting further back, especially as when the danger of crashes is highest at the front (last 500-odd metres) most of the uninvolved riders will have drifted back.

If we’re talking about an effect on racing too you’d also need to balance the chance of getting held up, even if you don’t crash, which will almost always be higher the further back you are.
 
Inside the last 3 km, I'd rather be in the second half of the bunch than just behind the sprinters where the battle for position is fierce. And you get the same time as the winner if you are held up in a crash at that point, so it's only the risk of crashing and getting hurts that matters (with the 3'' rule in effect). There's just far more space between riders at the end of the peloton, so crashes there are less likely to result in a giant pileup (or, I'd think, in general just the risk of being taken down by others' crashes).
 
Reactions: yaco
Inside the last 3 km, I'd rather be in the second half of the bunch than just behind the sprinters where the battle for position is fierce. And you get the same time as the winner if you are held up in a crash at that point, so it's only the risk of crashing and getting hurts that matters (with the 3'' rule in effect). There's just far more space between riders at the end of the peloton, so crashes there are less likely to result in a giant pileup (or, I'd think, in general just the risk of being taken down by others' crashes).
That’s probably true, but it’s not really the area of the race under discussion. The accepted wisdom of GC riders being close to the front applies up to 3km on sprint stages, and then they tend to drift back because the effort required to hold the pace of the lead out trains is more than they want to expend and the 3km rule has come into place. Unless I’ve missed something?
 
Was it Dombrowski that crashed into the traffic island? If so, that's purely a rider error. Knackered after yesterday's exertions and not concentrating enough.

God knows what happened with Sivavkov's crash? About 8k out on a wide road

The crash of the Bardiani rider looked like bad luck, or misjudgement, again more than 5k out. Didn't take the corner well, whereas everyone else did.

If every bend in the road, road obstacle or variation in road width is now considered too dangerous, then they might as well relocate all sprint sages to motor racing circuits or the Middle East

No-one wants to see crashes, but it's a dangerous activity. Anyone who's ridden at more than 40 kph for an extended period of time has probably crashed or had a near miss, even when riding solo?
 
Reactions: limak_
Extending the 3km rule to 5km in stages such as today wouldn't be a radical change, and would help I think. Landa's crash today was at around 4km.
I don't think it would. Even the introduction of the 3s sprint protocol didn't change anything, although it makes it almosts impossible to lose time in a sprint stage. Look at today for example, Bernal still got involved and finished 19th, although there was absolutely no need to. He had done the same with a 5k rule.

Strictly taking the GC times with 5k (or 10k, or whatever, like Eisel suggested) - no matter if there's a crash or not - probably would, but personally I wouldn't like that change either. Then you could also just hand out "rest day jokers" instead for people to skip stages they don't like. The finish should remain where it is.

Also how would it work for cross wind stages, for example? It's basically impossible to find a fair solution that way.
 
As of positioning of the GC guys in peloton during flat stages. They stay in the front not for safety reasons but because it is less likely to stay behind the split if crash happens.
 
Was it Dombrowski that crashed into the traffic island? If so, that's purely a rider error. Knackered after yesterday's exertions and not concentrating enough.
I've watched it a bunch of times, it's hard to see, but it looked like Dombrowski panicked, probably didn't pay enough attention. He was safely on the left side of the traffic isle, and I think he could have passed easily on that side, but in the absolute last moment switched to the right, strafed the flag waver and was catapulted into the peloton on the right side, taking out Landa with pinpoint precision. I don't think he even hit the traffic island, but I could be wrong about that.
 
I don't think it would. Even the introduction of the 3s sprint protocol didn't change anything, although it makes it almosts impossible to lose time in a sprint stage. Look at today for example, Bernal still got involved and finished 19th, although there was absolutely no need to. He had done the same with a 5k rule.

Strictly taking the GC times with 5k (or 10k, or whatever, like Eisel suggested) - no matter if there's a crash or not - probably would, but personally I wouldn't like that change either. Then you could also just hand out "rest day jokers" instead for people to skip stages they don't like. The finish should remain where it is.

Also how would it work for cross wind stages, for example? It's basically impossible to find a fair solution that way.
I’m struggling to see the issue with cross wind stages?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY