• 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.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

ideas of how to make bunch sprints safer ...

Apr 1, 2013
426
0
0
Visit site
not sure if any 'officials' are reading these forums, but perhaps they are ...
let's sample and discuss some ideas how to make bunch sprints safer for the riders
 
Apr 1, 2013
426
0
0
Visit site
Idea 1
the last say 100m to 300m (the distance should be valued by actual sprinters) could be marked in lanes .... any rider crossing his once chosen lane would be disqualified ...
so the train would have to end before the lane starts and from thereon the sprinter would be on his own and in the wind - no slipstream from teammates or competitors - accidents once the lane starts should thus be avoided .... what I am not sure is about the fights before the lane starts ....
 
Apr 1, 2013
426
0
0
Visit site
idea 2

the barriers in the last 100m - 200m should be padded .... riders falling into the barrier would still feel the tarmac, but would not be injured by the barrier itself
 
Re:

loge1884 said:
Idea 1
the last say 100m to 300m (the distance should be valued by actual sprinters) could be marked in lanes .... any rider crossing his once chosen lane would be disqualified ...
so the train would have to end before the lane starts and from thereon the sprinter would be on his own and in the wind - no slipstream from teammates or competitors - accidents once the lane starts should thus be avoided .... what I am not sure is about the fights before the lane starts ....
Personally I think that's a terrible idea and takes a huge amount of interest and competition out of the sprints.

The most obvious thing to me would be to have two finishing lines 3km apart. One is where finishing time is taken and one is where the sprint and points are won. It would allow riders not interested in the sprint to drop back once crossing the first line and leave more room on the road for sprinters and their trains. I've mentioned this before in a very similar thread.

The easiest thing to do would be to introduce two barriers so fans cannot lean out and possibly catch riders.

They could also impose large fines on hosting cities/towns that do not properly manage road furniture.
 
Idea C (as suggested by Hayman):

Two lanes; green (safe) lane, and red (havoc) lane. Green for the GC riders - and I suppose everyone else not interested in the sprints - red for sprinters.
Though, that wouldn't actually make the sprints safer for the sprinters themselves.
 
Apr 1, 2013
426
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

+ Personally I think that's a terrible idea and takes a huge amount of interest and competition out of the sprints. +

the competition would be there, in a different way ... it would just be less crowded and the teamwork/ "train" would be less important than the full-speed stamina of the rider himself ....
I agree, the sprints would be even more predictable than they are today (i.e. the rider with the best short term power output would usually win, and no one could be 'sneaking' himself to victory) ...

The idea of taking the time 2 or 3 km before the actual finish would definitely make the final less crowded, all the GC contenders (and their team, if they don't have any valuable sprinter) wouldn't be in anyone's way .... especially in the first week of a GT, when the GC isn't halfway settled yet ....
 
Apr 1, 2013
426
0
0
Visit site
SKSemtex said:
I have an idea. Just do not make any sprinter stage :D or make them go uphill last 100 meters.
Tour with zero flat bunch would be perfect for me. :D

I am not a huge fan of (pure) sprint stages, but one of the beauties of GT-cycling is, there is room for a variety of riders, including one-trick-pony-bunch sprinters like Kittel or Cavendish ... if you ban the possibility of bunch sprints, GT-cycling would be somewhat poorer ....
 
Apr 1, 2013
426
0
0
Visit site
Re:

RedheadDane said:
Idea C (as suggested by Hayman):

Two lanes; green (safe) lane, and red (havoc) lane. Green for the GC riders - and I suppose everyone else not interested in the sprints - red for sprinters.
Though, that wouldn't actually make the sprints safer for the sprinters themselves.

if you do the red lane in the middle, and (two) green lanes on the side, then you at least wouldn't have anyone running into the barriers ....
 
loge1884 said:
SKSemtex said:
I have an idea. Just do not make any sprinter stage :D or make them go uphill last 100 meters.
Tour with zero flat bunch would be perfect for me. :D

I am not a huge fan of (pure) sprint stages, but one of the beauties of GT-cycling is, there is room for a variety of riders, including one-trick-pony-bunch sprinters like Kittel or Cavendish ... if you ban the possibility of bunch sprints, GT-cycling would be somewhat poorer ....

Kittel finished 9th in the 14km opening ITT. Was 5th in the opening ITT in last years Giro which allowed him to take pink. Perhaps his gold medal in the TTT WC is worth a mention aswell. His TT is more than decent so perhaps we could ditch this derogatory "One Trick Pony" speech?
 
Jul 4, 2015
658
0
0
Visit site
I think the simplest way is just to end all sprint stages on a wide, long straight boulevard or autoroute. Of course there's going to always be a slight risk of a crash but the wider and straighter the road is, the less likely there is of being a crash. Maybe also get rid of barriers on the side of the road and move them back say 50m so that if someone is forced off he has a slowing down zone on grass or foam, or a pool of water. That way if anyone went off the risk of injuries would be far lower and we'd lose less riders. What's more that would end the risk of spectators clipping the cyclist and bringing them down, so it's also getting rid of that risk.
 
Aug 13, 2016
97
0
0
Visit site
Simples.

1) start enforcing existing rules

2) to do 1) formally declare that any decision made by a jury, which would break the rules itself is null and void (e.g. Sagan DQ after political pressure)

3) to do 1) stop selective application of penalties based on nationality, political or financial backing (the current norm)

4) to do 3) for post-race penalties, introduce a formal appeals process. Without any appeals process there is exactly ZERO feedback inherent in the system otherwise allowing it to self-correct mistakes


It does not matter what rules are if they are applied selectively, as it suits the powers that be. NO ONE respects such "rules".
 
In this forum the term "one trick pony" is almost exclusively handed out (and always in a derogatory manner) to sprinters. I have never seen any mentioning of riders like Mikel Landa, Dan Martin, Egan Bernal etc. as "one trick pony", although their sole asset is climbing well.
 
Aug 13, 2016
97
0
0
Visit site
Ramon Koran said:
I think the simplest way is just to end all sprint stages on a wide, long straight boulevard or autoroute.
This would not solve Démare.
But on the definition course side, it should be a matter of course though not always possible.
 
Ramon Koran said:
I think the simplest way is just to end all sprint stages on a wide, long straight boulevard or autoroute. Of course there's going to always be a slight risk of a crash but the wider and straighter the road is, the less likely there is of being a crash. Maybe also get rid of barriers on the side of the road and move them back say 50m so that if someone is forced off he has a slowing down zone on grass or foam, or a pool of water. That way if anyone went off the risk of injuries would be far lower and we'd lose less riders. What's more that would end the risk of spectators clipping the cyclist and bringing them down, so it's also getting rid of that risk.
Nope. It's exactly the long straight and flat finals, where both sides of the road are equal that you are more likely to see sprinters move from one side to the other. It's obviously better than crazy finals with sharp bends and road furniture, but long light bends favors trains and therefore also make the position fight less crazy.

...

I'd also say that the safer the barriers get, the more risks the sprinters will take with regards to them.
 
Just enforce the existing rules consistently. Or maybe ban riders who sprint dangerously and cause crashes. First time in a season = chucked out of race. Second time = banned for a month. Third time = banned for the season.

Some irresponsible sprinters will do whatever it takes to win, unless they know for sure that it will result in a ban.
 
Re:

DFA123 said:
Just enforce the existing rules consistently. Or maybe ban riders who sprint dangerously and cause crashes. First time in a season = chucked out of race. Second time = banned for a month. Third time = banned for the season.

Some irresponsible sprinters will do whatever it takes to win, unless they know for sure that it will result in a ban.

As was said above "enforcing the rules" hides too much subjectivity.
I am not expert in a bunch sprint but you do not have to be a professional cyclist to figure out that line deviation is necessary for bunch sprint due to overtaking of slower riders. Who is going to measure how dangerous the deviation was? Who is going to measure the speed of riders to decide who should push the break in case the hole is closed ( as some of those for sagan DQ state that Sagan should start braking as he was slower. :D ).
Leave it like it is. I do not want the stage to be decided on table.

What is 100% sure is that each TDF must start with prolog. Design stage 2 or 3 hilly enough to make sure that sprinters are not going to kill themselves to be yellow. + Less pure sprinter stages the better.
 
Re: Re:

SKSemtex said:
DFA123 said:
Just enforce the existing rules consistently. Or maybe ban riders who sprint dangerously and cause crashes. First time in a season = chucked out of race. Second time = banned for a month. Third time = banned for the season.

Some irresponsible sprinters will do whatever it takes to win, unless they know for sure that it will result in a ban.

As was said above "enforcing the rules" hides too much subjectivity.
I am not expert in a bunch sprint but you do not have to be a professional cyclist to figure out that line deviation is necessary for bunch sprint due to overtaking of slower riders. Who is going to measure how dangerous the deviation was? Who is going to measure the speed of riders to decide who should push the break in case the hole is closed ( as some of those for sagan DQ state that Sagan should start braking as he was slower. :D ).
Leave it like it is. I do not want the stage to be decided on table.

What is 100% sure is that each TDF must start with prolog. Design stage 2 or 3 hilly enough to make sure that sprinters are not going to kill themselves to be yellow. + Less pure sprinter stages the better.

This. After all, riding straight into someone from behind is pretty dangerous too...
 
Apr 20, 2009
121
0
0
Visit site
The best way to avoid crashes is to severely penaluze when riders when they deviate from their line. Demare did not have much of a choice as he was reacting to Satan's severe deviation and to the Greipel Bouhani bump. But, the best way would be to kick riders from the race when they ride as recklessly as Sagan deviating from the left barrier to the right barrier in a few meters. Riders need to be able to maneuver to avoid a slower rider like Sagan but also need to hold their lines and be aware if other riders . The problem with that is selective enforcement. They would have to remove riders for minor infractions as well as the severe reckless maneuvers like Sagan's .

Another way to make Sprints safer would be to be to change the green jersey rules so a guy who cannot sprint like Sagan could never win the jersey. Change the point system so only the best sprinters win with most of the points going to the winner. That way a reckless rider like Sagan will not keep interfering with sprints to get a 3rd or 4th place while putting everyone else at risk.

Another way would be to not reduce the team size next year. Getting rid of one rider will make sprinting less safe as the sprinter trains will be smaller and there will be more free wheeling and maneuvering.

Rather increase the team size to 10 and get rid of two teams it will make everyone safer.
 
Redesign the barriers in the last 500m. Make them a flat bottomed U-shape or triangular so that there are no legs sticking out and there is a gap so that spectators can't lean over them.

Otherwise crashes in the actual sprints are actually quite rare. It's the run that more usually causes a problem. Beyond taking the GC times at the 3km to go mark, I'm not sure there's much to be done about that.
 
Re:

Chomsky said:
The best way to avoid crashes is to severely penaluze when riders when they deviate from their line. Demare did not have much of a choice as he was reacting to Satan's severe deviation and to the Greipel Bouhani bump. But, the best way would be to kick riders from the race when they ride as recklessly as Sagan deviating from the left barrier to the right barrier in a few meters. Riders need to be able to maneuver to avoid a slower rider like Sagan but also need to hold their lines and be aware if other riders . The problem with that is selective enforcement. They would have to remove riders for minor infractions as well as the severe reckless maneuvers like Sagan's .

Another way to make Sprints safer would be to be to change the green jersey rules so a guy who cannot sprint like Sagan could never win the jersey. Change the point system so only the best sprinters win with most of the points going to the winner. That way a reckless rider like Sagan will not keep interfering with sprints to get a 3rd or 4th place while putting everyone else at risk.

Another way would be to not reduce the team size next year. Getting rid of one rider will make sprinting less safe as the sprinter trains will be smaller and there will be more free wheeling and maneuvering.

Rather increase the team size to 10 and get rid of two teams it will make everyone safer.
Are you drunk?
 
Aug 13, 2016
97
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Chomsky said:
You should follow cycling more before commenting.
Your whole post is too much of the mark. One can discuss if there was a line deviation but claiming that Sagan forced Démare's agressive ride is a bridge too far.

And in any case, this is not a thread for that discussion.
 
Re:

Chomsky said:
The best way to avoid crashes is to severely penaluze when riders when they deviate from their line. Demare did not have much of a choice as he was reacting to Satan's severe deviation and to the Greipel Bouhani bump. But, the best way would be to kick riders from the race when they ride as recklessly as Sagan deviating from the left barrier to the right barrier in a few meters. Riders need to be able to maneuver to avoid a slower rider like Sagan but also need to hold their lines and be aware if other riders . The problem with that is selective enforcement. They would have to remove riders for minor infractions as well as the severe reckless maneuvers like Sagan's .

Another way to make Sprints safer would be to be to change the green jersey rules so a guy who cannot sprint like Sagan could never win the jersey. Change the point system so only the best sprinters win with most of the points going to the winner. That way a reckless rider like Sagan will not keep interfering with sprints to get a 3rd or 4th place while putting everyone else at risk.

Another way would be to not reduce the team size next year. Getting rid of one rider will make sprinting less safe as the sprinter trains will be smaller and there will be more free wheeling and maneuvering.

Rather increase the team size to 10 and get rid of two teams it will make everyone safer.

His actions in the last sprint might have been controversial, but I'd say it's a bit much to refer to him like that. :p