Disc brakes in the Pro ranks.

meanredspider

Omar Little wrote:

Most of the backlash is coming from riders that don't race and who are wanting to force their choice of bike on those that do, whether it be pro or amateur level.

I don't really see anybody "wanting to force" anything - except those shouting "Ban 'em!"

Neither me nor HCC care about what the pros ride. If there's someone wanting to force the pros to ride them, then I've missed it. And even Kittel (who is "forced to ride discs by his sponsors") isn't riding them today.

So please let's drop that. The pros can choose, full-stop.

maddog 2

[man 1] - discs sliced through his shoe. Could've killed him. Ban them!

[man2] - evidence shows it was a barrier

[man 1] - err...okay... ban them anyway. They could've done it.

[man 2] - great

apreading

What is really worrying is that nobody is looking for what really could have caused the cut.

I mean, if it was the barriers then we have potentially killer apparatus being used routinely at the side of many UCI events. Unless we recognise that then nothing will be done about it and safety will not be improved. Thinking about it, whether it cause the cut or not, steel barriers which presumably lock together and are covered only by the thin vinyl of the advertising, in a place where they could be hit by riders travelling at huge speed really doesnt make alot of sense. Should they not have some form of cushioning or be deformable to absorb some energy?

meanredspider

The barrier thing is difficult. There are all sorts of obstacles around a road race that could be lethal. Also, I guess there are certain points where you need to protect the crowd from the riders and vice versa. I think what needs to be considered is the unnecessary risks and the feet of those particular barriers look as though they might be sharp-edged and could do with plastic or rubber feet on them. But that's just speculation.

yorkshireraw

meanredspider wrote:

The barrier thing is difficult. There are all sorts of obstacles around a road race that could be lethal. Also, I guess there are certain points where you need to protect the crowd from the riders and vice versa. I think what needs to be considered is the unnecessary risks and the feet of those particular barriers look as though they might be sharp-edged and could do with plastic or rubber feet on them. But that's just speculation.

In the middle east races you could do away with barriers altogether - no crowds to worry about

meanredspider

YorkshireRaw wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

The barrier thing is difficult. There are all sorts of obstacles around a road race that could be lethal. Also, I guess there are certain points where you need to protect the crowd from the riders and vice versa. I think what needs to be considered is the unnecessary risks and the feet of those particular barriers look as though they might be sharp-edged and could do with plastic or rubber feet on them. But that's just speculation.

In the middle east races you could do away with barriers altogether - no crowds to worry about

Yes - they were conspicuous by their absence.

smoggysteve

apreading wrote:

From the Eurosport video (seems pretty conclusive to me):

Or more conclusive to counter your claim:

ocdupalais

SmoggySteve wrote:

apreading wrote:

From the Eurosport video (seems pretty conclusive to me):

Or more conclusive to counter your claim:

Even if the racing over the next couple of days is a bit pony, that has gone some way to making my weekend already - cheers Smoggy.

chrisw12

A genuine question, a bit ot to the last couple of posts but still relating to discs and pro's. Probably the most famous crash of my generation, Belokis crash, what was the final conclusion of what caused it and IF he was using disc brakes would it have been avoided?

I appreciate its a big IF there, but I'm just curious...

RichN95.

chrisw12 wrote:

A genuine question, a bit ot to the last couple of posts but still relating to discs and pro's. Probably the most famous crash of my generation, Belokis crash, what was the final conclusion of what caused it and IF he was using disc brakes would it have been avoided?

I appreciate its a big IF there, but I'm just curious...

I think the cause was generally thought to be him slipping on melted tarmac.

No idea if discs would have helped - never used them myself.

Ben6899

RichN95 wrote:

chrisw12 wrote:

A genuine question, a bit ot to the last couple of posts but still relating to discs and pro's. Probably the most famous crash of my generation, Belokis crash, what was the final conclusion of what caused it and IF he was using disc brakes would it have been avoided?

I appreciate its a big IF there, but I'm just curious...

I think the cause was generally thought to be him slipping on melted tarmac.

No idea if discs would have helped - never used them myself.

And Lance's eye-lasers.

JAQ001

Ok I read here a lot, but this is frustrating. Sorry to all that cried fowl. Not saying it was the disc, but sorry, it wasnt the barrier either. Go look at the footage. Sky rider is wedged between orica and kittel. Sky guy pushes orica guy into the barrier, does not contact the barrier himself, explaining why he is infront of the orica guy and in the road when they all came to a stop. Kittel went otb, how does that happen? Something stops your front wheel and your momentum throws you over. Sky was in contact with kittel before going down, not 5 meters away, falling to his left, meaning legs rotate anti clockwise right, under and up. There are is lot of things happening at once, but it was not the barrier, sky was falling legs towards kittel and legs away from the barrier.

Sorry that this is what I post for a first post.

RichN95.

maddog 2 wrote:

[man 1] - discs sliced through his shoe. Could've killed him. Ban them!

[man2] - evidence shows it was a barrier

[man 1] - err...okay... ban them anyway. They could've done it.

[man 2] - great

[man 1] - I'm the one who gets involved in crashes, not you. You're just sitting on the sofa watching TV.

[man 2] - I'M ON THE INTERNET!!!

meanredspider

RichN95 wrote:

maddog 2 wrote:

[man 1] - discs sliced through his shoe. Could've killed him. Ban them!

[man2] - evidence shows it was a barrier

[man 1] - err...okay... ban them anyway. They could've done it.

[man 2] - great

[man 1] - I'm the one who gets involved in crashes, not you. You're just sitting on the sofa watching TV.

[man 2] - I'M ON THE INTERNET!!!

Yup - it's a crazy idea that a TV replay could have a more accurate assessment than a person right in the action. It would never catch on in football, or cricket, or rugby, or hockey, or....

smoggysteve

meanredspider wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

maddog 2 wrote:

[man 1] - discs sliced through his shoe. Could've killed him. Ban them!

[man2] - evidence shows it was a barrier

[man 1] - err...okay... ban them anyway. They could've done it.

[man 2] - great

[man 1] - I'm the one who gets involved in crashes, not you. You're just sitting on the sofa watching TV.

[man 2] - I'M ON THE INTERNET!!!

Yup - it's a crazy idea that a TV replay could have a more accurate assessment than a person right in the action. It would never catch on in football, or cricket, or rugby, or hockey, or....

Consider your 4 examples are all played where cameras are all over and in fixed positions with the action only a few yards away it's not really a comparable scenario to one where cameras are either on a motorbike zig zagging through the peloton or mounted under a bloody helicopter hundreds of feet up in the air looking at no particular part of the action until it's already happened.

meanredspider

SmoggySteve wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

maddog 2 wrote:

[man 1] - discs sliced through his shoe. Could've killed him. Ban them!

[man2] - evidence shows it was a barrier

[man 1] - err...okay... ban them anyway. They could've done it.

[man 2] - great

[man 1] - I'm the one who gets involved in crashes, not you. You're just sitting on the sofa watching TV.

[man 2] - I'M ON THE INTERNET!!!

Yup - it's a crazy idea that a TV replay could have a more accurate assessment than a person right in the action. It would never catch on in football, or cricket, or rugby, or hockey, or....

Consider your 4 examples are all played where cameras are all over and in fixed positions with the action only a few yards away it's not really a comparable scenario to one where cameras are either on a motorbike zig zagging through the peloton or mounted under a bloody helicopter hundreds of feet up in the air looking at no particular part of the action until it's already happened.

On one hand people are arguing that the bunch is a pressured and crazy place to be and we all know that crashing is a confused experience. And yet people are arguing that Doull's assessment is better than people assessing the TV coverage. Are you saying the the video breakdown above is wrong? From what I've seen from the various shots it looks correct - and we can run it backwards and forwards and pause it and take stills.

smoggysteve

meanredspider wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

maddog 2 wrote:

[man 1] - discs sliced through his shoe. Could've killed him. Ban them!

[man2] - evidence shows it was a barrier

[man 1] - err...okay... ban them anyway. They could've done it.

[man 2] - great

[man 1] - I'm the one who gets involved in crashes, not you. You're just sitting on the sofa watching TV.

[man 2] - I'M ON THE INTERNET!!!

Yup - it's a crazy idea that a TV replay could have a more accurate assessment than a person right in the action. It would never catch on in football, or cricket, or rugby, or hockey, or....

Consider your 4 examples are all played where cameras are all over and in fixed positions with the action only a few yards away it's not really a comparable scenario to one where cameras are either on a motorbike zig zagging through the peloton or mounted under a bloody helicopter hundreds of feet up in the air looking at no particular part of the action until it's already happened.

On one hand people are arguing that the bunch is a pressured and crazy place to be and we all know that crashing is a confused experience. And yet people are arguing that Doull's assessment is better than people assessing the TV coverage. Are you saying the the video breakdown above is wrong? From what I've seen from the various shots it looks correct - and we can run it backwards and forwards and pause it and take stills.

I'm saying your argument is flawed. There is no 100% conclusive evidence to say what happened from any camera angle. And you know why? Cos if there was the tv commentary would have picked it apart. So far even Kittel has ditched the discs as he is uncertain as to what happened. The people who are trialling the brakes would have been screaming from the rooftops that it was not the disc. But they don't because they cannot comprehensively prove otherwise. Its the cycling equivalent to the JFK assassination. So many differing point of view yet none prove beyond a shadow of a doubt where the truth lays. The majority of the arguments here are biased before they are made. If you are pro discs you will scoff at the idea a disc cut Doulls shoe, if you are anti disc you use it as ammo against them. I couldn't really give a sh!t either way tbh, I try to play devils advocate ( pretty much cos it's fun winding up blinkered attitudes) so if there is a doubt about something , no matter how small or improbable it may look or sound I feel it should be taken into account , not just angrily dismissed cos it shoots down my POV.

meanredspider

Cartainly no anger here. I'm bored cos I'm spending most of my time on my daughter's cancer ward.

I think the evidence casts huge doubt on it being the discs. The TV is only part of the evidence - that alone suggests it was pretty unlikely that Doull's left foot got anywhere near Kittels brake. Add to that, the shoe looks nothing like I'd expect to see had the disc cut it. And that those of us that have tried can't get a shoe (with a foot in it) to a position on the bike where the disc can get there. The "evidence" for it being a disc looks unbelievable.

Then we look at one of the alternative possibilities, the barrier, and the shoe looks very much like you'd expect the shoe (and sock) to look if it was in contact with the barriers of the type shown in pictures. We don't know for sure but the barrier fits the "evidence" much better.

Has Kittel actually come out and said he doesn't know if the disc did it? I've not seen that. What I have seen it that, given the hysteria in the peloton about discs, it's a sensible choice to defuse it until the dust settles. Who are these people "trialling" disc brakes who would be screaming? By not riding discs, it also takes the steam out of any UCI decision.

And that's my other thought: in the initial hysteria over this incident on this thread, there was a view that discs would be banned right away (at least that how I took what people said). Certainly, if UCI had any significant concerns that the disc had done it, they'd have banned them immediately. They haven't so I can only assume there's considerable doubt.

Finally, one of the cycling on-line publications wrote an article about it - mentioning Doull's concern and then casting doubt on it by taking into account the video evidence. I then went on to read the comments, expecting there to be lots of the same "ban 'em" comments as there has been in this thread. I was surprised to see that there was an overwhelming belief that Doull was wrong.

At the end of the day, it's just a bit of fun. So some guy who rides a bike for a living has fallen off and blamed his competitor's bike for damaging his shoe. Meanwhile, in the real world, I'm surrounded by young people having brutal treatment for various cancers. And their sick-with-worry parents, friends and relatives. If anybody honestly believes I care about this, you could not be more wrong.

bobmcstuff

https://twitter.com/JasenThorpe/status/ ... 4484951040

...

philwint

SmoggySteve wrote:

I'm saying your argument is flawed. There is no 100% conclusive evidence to say what happened from any camera angle. And you know why? Cos if there was the tv commentary would have picked it apart. So far even Kittel has ditched the discs as he is uncertain as to what happened. The people who are trialling the brakes would have been screaming from the rooftops that it was not the disc. But they don't because they cannot comprehensively prove otherwise. Its the cycling equivalent to the JFK assassination. So many differing point of view yet none prove beyond a shadow of a doubt where the truth lays. The majority of the arguments here are biased before they are made. If you are pro discs you will scoff at the idea a disc cut Doulls shoe, if you are anti disc you use it as ammo against them. I couldn't really give a sh!t either way tbh, I try to play devils advocate ( pretty much cos it's fun winding up blinkered attitudes) so if there is a doubt about something , no matter how small or improbable it may look or sound I feel it should be taken into account , not just angrily dismissed cos it shoots down my POV.

But your logic is similarly flawed.

Because something cannot be 100% proved doesn't mean the argument falls back to 50:50 call.

In this case the evidence looks pretty convincing, if not 100%. So let's say 95% chance the fence caused it, 5% chance that somehow, despite the apparent distance between the disc rotor and the shoe then disc caused it.

So most reasonable people will go with the more probable option.

smoggysteve

philwint wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

I'm saying your argument is flawed. There is no 100% conclusive evidence to say what happened from any camera angle. And you know why? Cos if there was the tv commentary would have picked it apart. So far even Kittel has ditched the discs as he is uncertain as to what happened. The people who are trialling the brakes would have been screaming from the rooftops that it was not the disc. But they don't because they cannot comprehensively prove otherwise. Its the cycling equivalent to the JFK assassination. So many differing point of view yet none prove beyond a shadow of a doubt where the truth lays. The majority of the arguments here are biased before they are made. If you are pro discs you will scoff at the idea a disc cut Doulls shoe, if you are anti disc you use it as ammo against them. I couldn't really give a sh!t either way tbh, I try to play devils advocate ( pretty much cos it's fun winding up blinkered attitudes) so if there is a doubt about something , no matter how small or improbable it may look or sound I feel it should be taken into account , not just angrily dismissed cos it shoots down my POV.

But your logic is similarly flawed.

Because something cannot be 100% proved doesn't mean the argument falls back to 50:50 call.

In this case the evidence looks pretty convincing, if not 100%. So let's say 95% chance the fence caused it, 5% chance that somehow, despite the apparent distance between the disc rotor and the shoe then disc caused it.

So most reasonable people will go with the more probable option.

In any case where there are major safety issues you can't just use the balance of probability. It could be 99% likely but if that 1% is not worth the risk you don't take the risk

meanredspider

You wouldn't do pro cycling then. There are much greater risks than the (hypothetical?) chamfered disc risk. The barrier looks a lot scarier for starters - imagine your face on one of those... But trees, street furniture, motorbikes etc

smoggysteve

meanredspider wrote:

You wouldn't do pro cycling then. There are much greater risks than the (hypothetical?) chamfered disc risk. The barrier looks a lot scarier for starters - imagine your face on one of those... But trees, street furniture, motorbikes etc

Stupid argument. But hey plenty of Pro cyclists don't want them in the races . They made that pretty clear.

Avoiding barriers, trees, street furniture are my problem . I can ride to avoid them cos they don't move. I know where they are. Someone moving about with a potential hazard on their bike is out of my control.

meanredspider

SmoggySteve wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

You wouldn't do pro cycling then. There are much greater risks than the (hypothetical?) chamfered disc risk. The barrier looks a lot scarier for starters - imagine your face on one of those... But trees, street furniture, motorbikes etc

Stupid argument. But hey plenty of Pro cyclists don't want them in the races . They made that pretty clear.

Avoiding barriers, trees, street furniture are my problem . I can ride to avoid them cos they don't move. I know where they are. Someone moving about with a potential hazard on their bike is out of my control.

What - ride to avoid them like Doull avoided the barrier? Ha - aye, right

And there's just the small matter of there not being much evidence to suggest that chamfered discs are even a hazard - but let's not let that lack of evidence get in the way of a good argument

If the pros don't want to ride them then let them persuade the UCI - they're grown men and don't need our help

smoggysteve

meanredspider wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

You wouldn't do pro cycling then. There are much greater risks than the (hypothetical?) chamfered disc risk. The barrier looks a lot scarier for starters - imagine your face on one of those... But trees, street furniture, motorbikes etc

Stupid argument. But hey plenty of Pro cyclists don't want them in the races . They made that pretty clear.

Avoiding barriers, trees, street furniture are my problem . I can ride to avoid them cos they don't move. I know where they are. Someone moving about with a potential hazard on their bike is out of my control.

If the pros don't want to ride them then let them persuade the UCI - they're grown men and don't need our help

That's the most sensible thing you've said.

No wait, I'm wrong.

It's the only thing

meanredspider

I know when the game is going well when the opposition stops playing the ball and starts playing the man

smoggysteve

meanredspider wrote:

I know when the game is going well when the opposition stops playing the ball and starts playing the man

I know that people try to make themselves sound clever when they have ran out of convincing things to say :P

meanredspider

SmoggySteve wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I know when the game is going well when the opposition stops playing the ball and starts playing the man

I know that people try to make themselves sound clever when they have ran out of convincing things to say :P

I'm just waiting for a response about Doull crashing. Odds on he didn't touch Kittel's disc and we know he impacted the barrier. Are you saying he chose to hit the barrier because he was in control?

I'm also waiting on the evidence that a chamfered disc is a hazard. After all, UCI banned them after one rider cried "Wolf!" then readmitted them as chamfered. I'm expecting that they did a hazard analysis before that. Maybe you don't think they did?

ETA - was it you that suggested that Kittel has actually said he doesn't know if the disc did it (I'm on a phone and can't be bothered to look back)? I'm still waiting to hear about that too (from whoever said it).

The only argument against the discs seems to be that some of the pros don't like them. Given that it's accepted that they benefit the heavier guys the most, that's hardly surprising

smoggysteve

meanredspider wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I know when the game is going well when the opposition stops playing the ball and starts playing the man

I know that people try to make themselves sound clever when they have ran out of convincing things to say :P

I'm just waiting for a response about Doull crashing. Odds on he didn't touch Kittel's disc and we know he impacted the barrier. Are you saying he chose to hit the barrier because he was in control?

I'm also waiting on the evidence that a chamfered disc is a hazard. After all, UCI banned them after one rider cried "Wolf!" then readmitted them as chamfered. I'm expecting that they did a hazard analysis before that. Maybe you don't think they did?

Why should I be the one to submit any evidence? Doull hit a barrier after a group of riders got in each other's way. So he took the risk of being there so what's your point? As for the disc, it's not for anyone to prove they are dangerous, it's for people to prove they are safe. beyond any doubt

meanredspider

He took the risk because he's in a bike race. It comes with racing (as people have said often enough here). In that situation, you rely on the behaviour of your fellow riders - if they nudge you into a tree, barrier, down an embankment, "that's racing".

Again, it's up to the UCI to determine they are safe. To date, I've seen nothing to suggest that chamfered discs are a hazard.

As I edited above, that you may not have seen, I can imagine the lighter guys in the peloton are against discs because they confer more benefit to the heavier guys. They can hardly say that so cry "safety" instead. As with the helmet thing years ago, just because riders don't like something doesn't mean they're right