The 3km rule.

[Caruut]

After several big crashes near the line, we've had a lot of talk in the Tour de France race threads about the 3km rule - that riders crashing, flatting or having a mechanical within the last 3km (except on MTFs) gets the same time as the group they were in.

Is it fit for purpose? Does it encourage dangerous riding by ensuring that riders know they'll be given the same time? Is the alternative - that a GC guy gets ****ed over by sprinters jockeying for position - worse?

If you don't like it, what would your alternative be?

 

[roundabout]

The alternative is worse. There.

The rule itself is ok.

 

[Ragerod]

It's fine for bunch sprints but only bunch sprints.

If the stage isn't flat or the finish is a categorised climb then it shouldn't be used.

 

[roundabout]

What if it's a short finishing climb after a flatish stage when there is still too many people wanting to be at the front?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Rule shouldn't count for stages which finish on a categorised climb.

 

[therhodeo]

There should be some sort of determination as to whether a rider was actually impeded or stopped to be counted under the rule.

 

[Marcus135]

Well generally the ones going for the stage win and being reckless in the final 3km are not GC riders so probs dont care if they lose time or not.

 

[Ragerod]

What if it's a short finishing climb after a flatish stage when there is still too many people wanting to be at the front?

If the finish is a categorised climb then the rule isn't used. I thought I was pretty clear. If the organisers think it'll be a problem don't classify it as a climb, just consider it an uphill sprint.

 

[SaxonUK]

I don't see an issue with the 3km rule, in sprints it helps those who aren't sprinting who may be caught up in the push and pull of sprinters fighting for optimal positions, so it does have benefit to GC contenders as protection against those fighting for green and stage wins.

As for climbs, how often does the 3km rule interfere with stage finishes in the mountains for it to be worth changing it?

 

[UpTheRoad]

If the finish is a categorised climb then the rule isn't used. I thought I was pretty clear. If the organisers think it'll be a problem don't classify it as a climb, just consider it an uphill sprint.

Stage 3 to Boulogne Sur Mer had a Cat 4 climb to the finish, but the rule was used. Hard to tell beforehand whether or not to categorize an uphill based on what might happen during the race.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

The rule as it is written for this race (the first para is the same as in the UCI regs):

In the event that a rider or riders suffer a fall, puncture or mechanical incident in the last
3 kilometres and such an incident is duly recognised, the rider or riders involved are
credited with the same finishing time of the rider or riders they were with at the time of
the incident. They are attributed this ranking only upon crossing the finish line. If after a
fall, it is impossible for a rider to cross the finish line, he is given the ranking of last in
the stage and credited with the time of the rider or riders he was with at the time of the
incident.
For exceptional cases, the decision taken by the stewards committee is final.
This measure does not apply to:
• finishes of the prologue, from 9th stage to the 19th, which is a team time trial and of the 20th stage which is an individual time trial;
• summit finishes of the 7th, 11th and 17th stages.

http://www.letour.com/le-tour/2012/docs/reglement.pdf

 

[Catwhoorg]

The rules specify which stages the 3km rule doesn't apply each year.

As for the rule itself, I'd almost be tempted to push it out to 5km, maybe even have the time at 5km being that which counts for the (flat) stage, and so only the sprint trains (and breakaway remnants) will be doing anything other than easy peddling for the rest.


Being awarded the same time means squat to the sprinter, if they get taken out they get zero points for the stage, and thats what matters to them.

Obviously the intent is GC based, so give those guys their time check, then let the sprinters battle it out with a reduced field.

 

[thehog]

After several big crashes near the line, we've had a lot of talk in the Tour de France race threads about the 3km rule - that riders crashing, flatting or having a mechanical within the last 3km (except on MTFs) gets the same time as the group they were in.

Is it fit for purpose? Does it encourage dangerous riding by ensuring that riders know they'll be given the same time? Is the alternative - that a GC guy gets ****ed over by sprinters jockeying for position - worse?

If you don't like it, what would your alternative be?

It used to be the 1km rule until about 2006/7. What occurred was it caused more crashes whereby GC contenders afraid of losing time would race to get inside the 1km limit competing with the sprint trains. ASO added the longer prologue in 2005 to try and achieve greater time gaps in the first week. They then decided to make it the 3km rule to reduce the pressure of riders getting to 1km and competing with sprint trains. If they make it any longer it just gets stupid and any shorter they’ll go back to the old problem. Believe me it used to be worse when it was the 1km rule. A lot worse than it is today.

 

[Orvieto]

After several big crashes near the line, we've had a lot of talk in the Tour de France race threads about the 3km rule - that riders crashing, flatting or having a mechanical within the last 3km (except on MTFs) gets the same time as the group they were in.

Is it fit for purpose? Does it encourage dangerous riding by ensuring that riders know they'll be given the same time? Is the alternative - that a GC guy gets ****ed over by sprinters jockeying for position - worse?

If you don't like it, what would your alternative be?

The only thing that bothers me about it is the roadblock effect on riders not directly in the incident, but who are impeded anyway. Stage one of the 2011 tour is the classic case for that, when Contador was involved in that big crash inside 10k then was further held up by the crash inside 3k. The 3k crashers lost 6 seconds, the 10k crashers lost 1:20 despite rolling in together.

That being said, I don't know what the solution is, perhaps to keep the gaps as they were at the time of the 3k crash.

Race design also plays a part. I'm not a big fan of bunch sprints, so I'd do away with them. Since that's not realistic, make sure that a bunch sprint stage has a wide finish, clear of street furniture.

 

[Ferminal]

What if it's a short finishing climb after a flatish stage when there is still too many people wanting to be at the front?

If there is a reasonable chance of time gaps the 3km rule doesn't reduce the risk of a crash.

 

[Azabael]

Obviously the intent is GC based, so give those guys their time check, then let the sprinters battle it out with a reduced field.

I like the idea. But how are you going to work that out. For instance, if it's too close after the time check, it could be chaos. The only way I could see that work is in a flat stage with a flat finish. All GC riders can stop at, say, 7k before the finish to let the sprinters have their battle. It would still be tricky, but viable.

 

[roundabout]

If there is a reasonable chance of time gaps the 3km rule doesn't reduce the risk of a crash.

To me the 3km rule is also about people not suffering from brainless riding of others.

Just because somewhat arbitrarily the stage ends on what is considered a climb doesn't mean that there isn't a mad dash for positions by the specialist finishers and their teams.

 

[the asian]

It's fine for bunch sprints but only bunch sprints.

If the stage isn't flat or the finish is a categorised climb then it shouldn't be used.

Agree with you.

 

[ElChingon]

They should institute the shutup and race rule. If they continue with this its going to be 100K rule. If the GC riders lose time well that's life/luck, its a freaking race not a kids line at the candy store, probably those kids are more cut throat.

 

[asdfgh101]

5km or summit of last categorised climb.

The problem is when a non high-mountain stage finishes on a categorised climb.

Perhaps take an average of first, median and last riders of group you were in who avoided the crash (if this is less than your actual time). If you are deemed to have ridden into the crash you shall be given you're own time.

Also greater punishments for riders who cause crashes.

 

[zigmeister]

I think your argument is backwards.

It isn't encouraging guys like Cadel and Wiggins to be crazy/dangerous. It encourages dangerous sprints/leadouts and banging that used to not be there as badly.

But, one reason they implemented it is to not penalize guys who are not wanting to sprint and get involved in the madness for getting caught behind a crash and the risky behavior that happens today.

I think the rule is just fine. If guys like Cadel and Wiggins want to sit up near the front while the sprint is getting near, they need to just be aware and ready to go down themselves, otherwise, at 3km, go to the back when it is a flat stage, you won't lose time.

When hilly at the finish, they have no choice to be up front, or they will lose time, the typical sprint craziness is less likely then.

 

[The Hitch]

With regard to punctures why should someone who.punctured at 3.1k.lose.minutes.to.the person they finish with who punctured at 2.9k

Personally i think there should be a comission to determine whether in a stage where 90% pof gc guys are given the same time, :the 1 gc guy who punctured or was stuck in a crash lost time due to his own fault or no, even if it happened 10k from the end.

 

[Dr.Sahl]

What if it's a short finishing climb after a flatish stage when there is still too many people wanting to be at the front?

Then there should be no rule im0... because people like wiggins will stear right into the crash on purpose ^^

But I think its a good rule on the pure flat stages..

Just my opinion.

 

[Caruut]

I think your argument is backwards.

It isn't encouraging guys like Cadel and Wiggins to be crazy/dangerous. It encourages dangerous sprints/leadouts and banging that used to not be there as badly.

Not really - the guys sprinting invariably don't care about the minutes they would lose due to a crash.

 

[Caruut]

With regard to punctures why should someone who.punctured at 3.1k.lose.minutes.to.the person they finish with who punctured at 2.9k

Personally i think there should be a comission to determine whether in a stage where 90% pof gc guys are given the same time, :the 1 gc guy who punctured or was stuck in a crash lost time due to his own fault or no, even if it happened 10k from the end.

I would maybe go for a complete amnesty within 3km, and a commission for 3km-15km. On uphill (not flat but not MTF) finishes, give them the time of the last rider unaffected by the crash. For a proper GC guy there should be no incentive to crash and risk getting the worst time, but it still protects people against being completely screwed over by a crash on the jostling run-in to an uphill sprint.