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

Page 14 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Will it be a sprint?


  • Total voters
    42
Just the most recent one but vuelta 2020 wasn't bad. Dani Martinez crashed early and left a few days later but he's a fringe GC contender anyway. It having so many mountain stages at the start is very unusual on GTs and I'd say that helped it.
I think it really helped that the race kicked off with 3 hard selective stages that already reduced both the overall GC field and those who could dream of taking the leader’s jersey in a first week breakaway.

It wasn’t planned as the original opening stages in Holland were flat and sprint oriented with high chances of the chaos of today but Covid changed the race structure.
 
how would you take gaps then? At 10k, even if the 2nd group makes it back later on? Or what happens, if splits occur inside those final 10k (like in the Sardegna stage a cople of years back)?
The time is taken at 5km in exactly the same way it’s taken at 0km. If there is a gap bigger than 3 seconds, or whatever’s they’re using, the time is different.
 
We should not be taking the time at any time other than the finish line unless there are extenuating circumstances for safety. This isn't Paris-Dakar, we don't have timed sections and liaison sections, otherwise you may as well make transitional stages a 'liaison' section and ignore them entirely. We just need the route planners and the stage hosts to better account for developments in the racing, especially now there are multiple teams with strong enough trains to drive a super high pace with multiple lines late on rather than the single-file strung-out racing we used to see more often than not until the final couple of killometres, at which point the GC guys had done what they needed to and could get out the way. Unfortunately, just like the 2012 Giro's Danish stages which created chaos, a finish that is fine and safe for 120 riders in a domestic or Europe Tour race might not be safe for 200 riders - including several who are not adept at flat racing - in a Grand Tour. It's unfortunate because this one actually comes after a stage that should have forced some teams to reappraise goals.
 
The time is taken at 5km in exactly the same way it’s taken at 0km. If there is a gap bigger than 3 seconds, or whatever’s they’re using, the time is different.
I don't think that's fair. Who wins by a late attack, or late crosswind action, or whatever, should be rewarded for it. In smaller races with less climbs that time may even make the difference between winning the overall or not.

Edit: That way you could also end up with whatever random rider in yellow who attacks for the 5k mark on stage 1 of a race. It would be absolutely absurd
 
Reactions: Eyeballs Out
The time is taken at 5km in exactly the same way it’s taken at 0km. If there is a gap bigger than 3 seconds, or whatever’s they’re using, the time is different.
Yeah, that would mean the gc teams would just try to keep it together until 5km to go and then the sprinters take over, if the final is just flat.
If you want to have a more technical final you have to make the stage harder, so that it's just a reduced sprint.
 
Who gets the leader's jersey after stage 1 (if it's a flat stage)?
Considering it’s likely the sprinters will all get the same time at 5k if you keep the 3-5 second gap rule, it seems logical to award the win to the guy who crosses the next line first. Awarding time bonuses would help take care of it too.

although I think if we get to the stage where this is a real thing, there’s an argument that the first stage should always be a prologue or TT.
 
My thought as I was watching the last crash-filled 20 km was: Surely these guys are going to be extra careful, knowing this is "only" a sprint stage and the road, while straight-ish, is full of traffic furniture etc. And yet, we still had two potentially GC-deciding crashes...

(the larger point is that this stage was completely gratuitous. Why not just find a nice, safe, crit circuit and have the riders do 50 laps or whatever?)
 
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.
You could create a rule that would cater for cross wind stages.

Something like when the peleton is over a certain amount of riders or percentage of the startlist at 3k/5k to go and on a flat stage (I think they categorise the stages so whatever category they go into) where the GC time rule comes into effect. That would cater for it I think and would just be for the commissaires to communicate that the rule is in effect coming up to the km marker to the teams (I'd imagine it'd be obvious most stages anyway)
 
The problem is that in crowded peloton sometimes you have nowhere to go. It's not like you can maneuver freely.
I remember many fewer crashes in the 70s, particularly on the flat stages. There were far fewer cyclists competing in these races. Sometimes only 100 to 120 would line up at the start of the TDF.

They should illuminate at least one of the riders maybe even two from each team. This would solve two issues. First you would have far fewer crashes. And second the race would be so much more exciting because teams would have no ability to control and the top riders would be riding against each other individually from much more of each stage, like in those days when the top dogs would be isolated for almost an entire stage, particularly in the mountains.
 
Reactions: Arked
Considering it’s likely the sprinters will all get the same time at 5k if you keep the 3-5 second gap rule, it seems logical to award the win to the guy who crosses the next line first. Awarding time bonuses would help take care of it too.

although I think if we get to the stage where this is a real thing, there’s an argument that the first stage should always be a prologue or TT.
It can be a selective (but not too selective) road stage (puncheur stage like 2008 Plumelec, for example, although that can stilll end up in crashfests, like 2011 Mont-des-Alouettes), a prologue or a TT (preferably not a TTT), but opening a GT with a pan-flat road stage should absolutely be avoided. Pretty much every one they've held in recent years has ended up with pile-ups, and when you get things like the Napoli stage in the Giro a few years ago or the Brussels Tour départ, it's by and large racing which is both boring and dangerous because nobody of any relevance wants to expend energy on a meaningless flat stage on day 1, yet simultaneously everybody wants to be at the front because nobody's reappraised their goals yet.
 
I remember many fewer crashes in the 70s, particularly on the flat stages. There were far fewer cyclists competing in these races. Sometimes only 100 to 120 would line up at the start of the TDF.

They should illuminate at least one of the riders maybe even two from each team. This would solve two issues. First you would have far fewer crashes. And second the race would be so much more exciting because teams would have no ability to control and the top riders would be riding against each other individually from much more of each stage, like in those days when the top dogs would be isolated for almost an entire stage, particularly in the mountains.
You'd think teams would have plenty riders to control during the 70es, sometimes starting with as many as 11 riders! per squad!
 
I remember many fewer crashes in the 70s, particularly on the flat stages. There were far fewer cyclists competing in these races. Sometimes only 100 to 120 would line up at the start of the TDF.

They should illuminate at least one of the riders maybe even two from each team. This would solve two issues. First you would have far fewer crashes. And second the race would be so much more exciting because teams would have no ability to control and the top riders would be riding against each other individually from much more of each stage, like in those days when the top dogs would be isolated for almost an entire stage, particularly in the mountains.
70s! How old are you?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY