• 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 ...

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
This thread happens several times per year after a sprint situation affects a race. Several have suggest that fewer riders contesting the sprint would make it safer, but look at how few riders were involved in the stage four sprint. I do like some type of regulation that lets GC riders and their teams roll in behind the sprint without it affecting their time. I agree with those who suggest that enforcing the rules in every sprint could clean things up a bit.
 
Eliminate sprint finishes: by definition you can't regulate chaos.

Seconds ago, the Phil/Paul guys put a pre-race interview of Greipel...Q: how does that decision (DQ Sagan) affect your actions moving forward? A: it doesn't. I try to win.

What happened was unfortunate. As long as there will be sprints and sprinters, things will happen from time to time. Turning the road into a swimming pool with lanes is non-sense. The wind or lack thereof can dictate which lane is better...so the fight will be to get to the best lane. Dangerous.

If nothing else, have climbs before a flat finish in order to skim the bunch. It's the end of the "pure sprinter", but really, the "pure sprinter" thing is a rather new thing. If you can't survive a few Cat 4 in the last 20 km, you don't deserve to win a stage in a GT, IMO.

Whether Sagan should have been sent home is a different topic. fwiw, I think that he should not have been sent home. I can go on and on. Sprinting is dangerous. Sprinters are fearless and don't hold back. Nothing will ever change that.
 
Jul 6, 2017
1
0
0
Visit site
I think a points system for small misdemeanours such as swerving or causing a crash would be a useful addition, like the have in formula 1. Say 3 points for a minor misdemeanour and 6 for a more serious one, the a max 12 points before being suspected for a race.

With a points system the jury is more likely to hand out penalties on a regular basis. The problem has been that many sprinters have got away with dangerous moves for too long and then suddenly Sagan gets DQ. A points system would allow us to know, and the sprinters to know, what is acceptable and what is not in the minds of the jury.
 
Re:

jmdirt said:
This thread happens several times per year after a sprint situation affects a race. Several have suggest that fewer riders contesting the sprint would make it safer, but look at how few riders were involved in the stage four sprint. I do like some type of regulation that lets GC riders and their teams roll in behind the sprint without it affecting their time. I agree with those who suggest that enforcing the rules in every sprint could clean things up a bit.

Lets be fair, there were so few because there was a crash beforehand. Maybe less riders would have meant only one crash!
 
Jan 20, 2016
684
0
0
Visit site
If Kittel didnt get caught behind 2 nights ago he would've won that stage easily and the minor placings would've been less hard fought and probably safer. Having an extremely deep and competitive sprint field (after Kittel) as we have this year makes it more dangerous in my opinion.
 
Jan 20, 2016
684
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

RedheadDane said:
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

it kind of suits him though :lol:
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
jmdirt said:
This thread happens several times per year after a sprint situation affects a race. Several have suggest that fewer riders contesting the sprint would make it safer, but look at how few riders were involved in the stage four sprint. I do like some type of regulation that lets GC riders and their teams roll in behind the sprint without it affecting their time. I agree with those who suggest that enforcing the rules in every sprint could clean things up a bit.

Lets be fair, there were so few because there was a crash beforehand. Maybe less riders would have meant only one crash!
Yes, but no one is talking about the first pile up, they are all jacked about the final sprint (which was a small group).
 
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.
Sure, it has to be a judgement call at some point as to what is dangerous and what isn't. But better for some 'experts' to make that call and maybe get the odd one wrong, than to allow a free for all increasing the chances of riders getting seriously injured, or worse.
 
Why do we need to make sprint safer? Just look at how many sprint finishes we have per season in pro cycling and then look at how many crashes we actually have, it's not really that many. Wet roads are dangerous so perhaps we need to not race when it's wet, seen riders come off on technical fast descents so maybe we should have no more of those, riders are in more danger of serious injury or worse from moto's than sprints. The best thing to do for sprints is fix the barriers and get fans to stop hanging over them and outside of that just enforce the rules consistently but cycling needs that across the board.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Minimize them drastically or don't have them at all. Plain and simple.
This would be a decent option for GTs. Like the Vuelta does, just stick a small climb at the end of most stages, then you'd get more guaranteed GC action as well. Then if there are only one or two pure sprint stages, most teams won't bother bringing big trains to support their rider and the finishes would be a lot less congested.

The pure sprinters who can't adapt can go and race on the track instead.
 
Theres literally nothing intriguing about a sprint stage apart from the last few kilometres. Everyone know whats gonna happen, even the Conti riders almost need to be forced to go into a break thats doomed months before the actual stage is ridden. Its ridiculous and frankly, isn't worth watching. And on top of that, they are very dangerous.

Less of them is more. Everyone could do without them. Well, almost everyone. It really isn't racing at this point IMO.
 
Yep, bunch sprints are great for the marketing guys putting together a minute or two video on the stage highlights to show how 'exciting' and 'fast' a race is. But for the fans who want to watch an hour or two of action they are terrible. The problem these days as well is that the Tour is designed for bunch sprints to definitely happen; the breakaway has almost no chance on these routes - there's absolutely no suspense until the finish.

Having so many sprints in the Tour is always going to make it more dangerous. With half the race as sprint stages, the majority of teams feel like they have to field a sprinter get involved in them. If there were a lot fewer, maybe only 2 or 3 teams would make them their principle objective.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
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.

you need to edit this again :lol:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Apply the rules on a consistent basis would make some riders keep their lines.

Others are nuts and would just face more DQs and not get places on teams till they adhere to rules.

It really is simple but then the UCI is such a circus and seem to enjoy applying stuff in any way or form that suits their own personal agendas it will never happen.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
You could end sprint trains at 3kms by having teams nominate their sprinter for each sprint stage and only allow 1 team member lead out their sprinter to the line. Would reduce the bunch sprint numbers from 3 ks out, but might create crashes further out as teams rush to get their men to 3ks........

the idea of lanes is hilarious. the fight to get the right lane would lead to so many crashes
 
Re:

StryderHells said:
Why do we need to make sprint safer? Just look at how many sprint finishes we have per season in pro cycling and then look at how many crashes we actually have, it's not really that many. Wet roads are dangerous so perhaps we need to not race when it's wet, seen riders come off on technical fast descents so maybe we should have no more of those, riders are in more danger of serious injury or worse from moto's than sprints. The best thing to do for sprints is fix the barriers and get fans to stop hanging over them and outside of that just enforce the rules consistently but cycling needs that across the board.

So, basically what you're saying is that the best way to make sprints safer if to make the spectators stop acting like a bunch of (drunk) morons?
Now... there's a full-time job! :p
 
Dec 14, 2016
1
0
2,510
Visit site
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.
I can agree with the above suggestion but the rules need to be applied objectively. However that may happen.

I love the sprint finishes - these guys are intense and i love their enthusiasm when they score a stage win. I have my favorites but I don't think any of the sprinters mean to harm or injure another. It's just very aggressive riding and a welcome change from watching some guy hoof it up a mountain.

This latest TDF incident is not the first time riders have crashed and/or been injured in a sprint and it won't be the last. But they always come back for more. Let these pros do what they do best and let them sort it out - best practices.

I think Cavendish and Sagan have made their peace so let them be. I say let the sprinters race their race and let weekend riders like me that average 15 mph (unless i'm being chased by a dog then it's maybe 15.5 mph) appreciate their specific talent!
 

TRENDING THREADS