Prize for going downhill a bit quicker (than everyone else)
Comments
-
Was it actually announced - or was it just dug out of the rule book by journos as it was released (which is what the Inrng article suggested)Pross wrote:It seems slightly bad taste to announce it so soon after Chad Young's crash. It just seems a completely pointless award, I can't see where it offers value to viewers due to the fact no-one is likely to see the performance on TV and the value for the sponsor will be limited too.
Would make sense that they deliberately hadn't made a lot of fuss about it given recent news.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
Wouter Weylandts, Chad Young, Ilnur Zakarin, Alex Vinokourov, Nairo Quintana, Jens Voigt, (Mauricio Soler must be more than five years ago). Taylor Phinney (was that a descent?). Chaves?Rick Chasey wrote:Out of interest, how many descending accidents that have resulted in a DNF can people remember off the top of their head in the past 5 years?
Alright, Wouter was more than 5 years ago, as was Vino and Jens and Soler.
The most obvious are Zakarin & Contador.
Point being; bunch finishes and dodgy furniture pose more risks to cyclists than descending, and it's, thankfully, pretty rare for serious accidents to happen at the speeds that occur when descending.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Point being; bunch finishes and dodgy furniture pose more risks to cyclists than descending, and it's, thankfully, pretty rare for serious accidents to happen at the speeds that occur when descending.
I see your point, especially with regard to the accepted dangers of bunch sprint finishes, but it just doesn't seem right. Normal descending is one thing, encouraging riders (or encouraging DSs to push riders) to take big chances for a specific descending prize just seems irresponsible.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
Salsiccia1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Point being; bunch finishes and dodgy furniture pose more risks to cyclists than descending, and it's, thankfully, pretty rare for serious accidents to happen at the speeds that occur when descending.
I see your point, especially with regard to the accepted dangers of bunch sprint finishes, but it just doesn't seem right. Normal descending is one thing, encouraging riders (or encouraging DSs to push riders) to take big chances for a specific descending prize just seems irresponsible.
Are we going to have a go at Nibs for putting the heat on downhill in the Giro and encouraging Kruiswijk to take risks for a specific prize?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:RichN95 wrote:
Wouter Weylandts, Chad Young, Ilnur Zakarin, Alex Vinokourov, Nairo Quintana, Jens Voigt, (Mauricio Soler must be more than five years ago). Taylor Phinney (was that a descent?). Chaves?Rick Chasey wrote:Out of interest, how many descending accidents that have resulted in a DNF can people remember off the top of their head in the past 5 years?
Alright, Wouter was more than 5 years ago, as was Vino and Jens and Soler.
The most obvious are Zakarin & Contador.
Point being; bunch finishes and dodgy furniture pose more risks to cyclists than descending, and it's, thankfully, pretty rare for serious accidents to happen at the speeds that occur when descending.
Accept your point about bunch finishes and town centre road furniture being crazy but removing bunch finishes and town centre finishes removes something integral to the sport - I guess we accept those risks because we have always accepted the risks associated with those aspects even if the level of risk may have changed slowly as the nature of the peloton and roads has changed. This new classification is not integral to racing, it seems a bit gimmicky and the attraction is based in large part on how much risk skilled descenders are willing to take.
The counter argument might be that we are only objecting because it is new rather I suppose - that it "feels wrong" but logically it's no more dangerous than lots of things we happily accept. Yes maybe true, I'm still going to go with gut feeling though. As Rich says anyway, if these demon descents are not on TV anyway what's the point so the whole discussion is moot.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Consortium of powerful disc brake manufacturers are behind this.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Point being; bunch finishes and dodgy furniture pose more risks to cyclists than descending, and it's, thankfully, pretty rare for serious accidents to happen at the speeds that occur when descending.
I see your point, especially with regard to the accepted dangers of bunch sprint finishes, but it just doesn't seem right. Normal descending is one thing, encouraging riders (or encouraging DSs to push riders) to take big chances for a specific descending prize just seems irresponsible.
Are we going to have a go at Nibs for putting the heat on downhill in the Giro and encouraging Kruiswijk to take risks for a specific prize?
Oh come on, you're just being obtuseIt's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
RichN95 wrote:I think the problem is that this could only be made interesting as a contest by dangerous riding.
By that thinking, the whole of motorsport only works by dangerous driving. The whole of downhill MTB only works through dangerous riding. The whole of downhill skiing only works through dangerous skiing (repeat ad nausium).
It's all down to skill.
Whilst I don't want to see cyclists hurt, the point is that it's a test of cycling skill. Going down hills on a bike is every bit as much a part of cycling as going up hills.
I think it's odd thinking to say that this risk is unacceptable but risking road furniture in towns because, broadly, it's part of the spectacle is OK. If we are really interested in rider safety, there's a lot that could be done. It's a little bit similar to the faux outrage about disc brakes after shoe-gate.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
You miss my point. There's plenty of ways that riders can tackle such a contest in a safe and skilled manner - and they are also probably the strategically best ways of winning. But from a viewer's perspective it's boring, and most likely unseen. The only way this is interesting is if riders are racing each other side by side. And that's dangerous. Downhill MTB and skiing are done one at a time.meanredspider wrote:RichN95 wrote:I think the problem is that this could only be made interesting as a contest by dangerous riding.
By that thinking, the whole of motorsport only works by dangerous driving. The whole of downhill MTB only works through dangerous riding. The whole of downhill skiing only works through dangerous skiing (repeat ad nausium).
It's all down to skill.
Whilst I don't want to see cyclists hurt, the point is that it's a test of cycling skill. Going down hills on a bike is every bit as much a part of cycling as going up hills.Twitter: @RichN950 -
if they only allowed it in dry conditions and also only on certain descents that had netting etc then it would be more acceptable. Didn't read the full rules of the comp though, was it all descents ?0
-
They should add a few ramps and some berms on the hairpins.0
-
-
RichN95 wrote:
You miss my point. There's plenty of ways that riders can tackle such a contest in a safe and skilled manner - and they are also probably the strategically best ways of winning. But from a viewer's perspective it's boring, and most likely unseen. The only way this is interesting is if riders are racing each other side by side. And that's dangerous. Downhill MTB and skiing are done one at a time.meanredspider wrote:RichN95 wrote:I think the problem is that this could only be made interesting as a contest by dangerous riding.
By that thinking, the whole of motorsport only works by dangerous driving. The whole of downhill MTB only works through dangerous riding. The whole of downhill skiing only works through dangerous skiing (repeat ad nausium).
It's all down to skill.
Whilst I don't want to see cyclists hurt, the point is that it's a test of cycling skill. Going down hills on a bike is every bit as much a part of cycling as going up hills.
It's rare that any fast descent is tackled side-by-side - you're unlikely to get your best time that way in any case as there's only usually only one "fastest line" through a corner. I don't see that it's going to be a "bunch" event. I actually don't think it will work very well rather than be dangerous. As a spectacle, I think it would be far more interesting than an ascent. Add intermediate timing "gates" to add interest. I know I'd tune in to watch.
My point is, though, that just because it's fast, it doesn't need to be dangerous and that there are plenty of sports like this.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
You think? It would be won by a local rider who gets deliberately dropped from the gruppetto or the breakaway near the summit to give them a 30-60s head start and then catches them up. It will be unseen by even the other riders. No-one where the cameras are will usually give a damn. If the timed descent is the last one of the day, Eurosport will have switched to another sport before the contenders have finished it.meanredspider wrote:As a spectacle, I think it would be far more interesting than an ascent. Add intermediate timing "gates" to add interest. I know I'd tune in to watch.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Salsiccia1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Point being; bunch finishes and dodgy furniture pose more risks to cyclists than descending, and it's, thankfully, pretty rare for serious accidents to happen at the speeds that occur when descending.
I see your point, especially with regard to the accepted dangers of bunch sprint finishes, but it just doesn't seem right. Normal descending is one thing, encouraging riders (or encouraging DSs to push riders) to take big chances for a specific descending prize just seems irresponsible.
Are we going to have a go at Nibs for putting the heat on downhill in the Giro and encouraging Kruiswijk to take risks for a specific prize?
Oh come on, you're just being obtuse
No way! Rick being deliberately contrary and argumentative?0 -
RichN95 wrote:
You think? It would be won by a local rider who gets deliberately dropped from the gruppetto or the breakaway near the summit to give them a 30-60s head start and then catches them up. It will be unseen by even the other riders. No-one where the cameras are will usually give a damn. If the timed descent is the last one of the day, Eurosport will have switched to another sport before the contenders have finished it.meanredspider wrote:As a spectacle, I think it would be far more interesting than an ascent. Add intermediate timing "gates" to add interest. I know I'd tune in to watch.
Yup, I do.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Pross wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Point being; bunch finishes and dodgy furniture pose more risks to cyclists than descending, and it's, thankfully, pretty rare for serious accidents to happen at the speeds that occur when descending.
I see your point, especially with regard to the accepted dangers of bunch sprint finishes, but it just doesn't seem right. Normal descending is one thing, encouraging riders (or encouraging DSs to push riders) to take big chances for a specific descending prize just seems irresponsible.
Are we going to have a go at Nibs for putting the heat on downhill in the Giro and encouraging Kruiswijk to take risks for a specific prize?
Oh come on, you're just being obtuse
No way! Rick being deliberately contrary and argumentative?
Go on then, explain the difference between the two. In the context of incentives to take excessive risks.0 -
meanredspider wrote:RichN95 wrote:I think the problem is that this could only be made interesting as a contest by dangerous riding.
By that thinking, the whole of motorsport only works by dangerous driving. The whole of downhill MTB only works through dangerous riding. The whole of downhill skiing only works through dangerous skiing (repeat ad nausium).
It's all down to skill.
Whilst I don't want to see cyclists hurt, the point is that it's a test of cycling skill. Going down hills on a bike is every bit as much a part of cycling as going up hills.
I think it's odd thinking to say that this risk is unacceptable but risking road furniture in towns because, broadly, it's part of the spectacle is OK. If we are really interested in rider safety, there's a lot that could be done. It's a little bit similar to the faux outrage about disc brakes after shoe-gate.
The thing is, all those other sports accept it's a risk and mitigate the risks as much as possible by use of safety features (they all have better levels of head protection and are either in a vehicle or covered by substantial more than microns think lycra and a bit of EPS, skiing is probably the one with the least protective clothing but it is still relatively thick and covers the whole body, the surface is also slightly more forgiving) and courses are designed with run off areas and protection such as tyre walls, ski netting or Armco giving a greater margin of error. If you run off on the wrong part of an Alpine descent you can either fall a substantial height or hit an unprotected object. But the key for me is that this would be going the other way and introducing a greater level of risk than is required for the purpose of the sport when those you list are generally trying to minimise risk.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
You think? It would be won by a local rider who gets deliberately dropped from the gruppetto or the breakaway near the summit to give them a 30-60s head start and then catches them up. It will be unseen by even the other riders. No-one where the cameras are will usually give a damn. If the timed descent is the last one of the day, Eurosport will have switched to another sport before the contenders have finished it.meanredspider wrote:As a spectacle, I think it would be far more interesting than an ascent. Add intermediate timing "gates" to add interest. I know I'd tune in to watch.
Pretty much this is how I envisage it would have happened.
It's such a lame idea, anyway, to give someone a couple of hundred quid if they go hell for leather down a mountain. I mean personally I like to see descending skills play a part in a Grand Tour, but the way to do it is to choose a route that facilitates it and let the riders make the race organically.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Pross wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Point being; bunch finishes and dodgy furniture pose more risks to cyclists than descending, and it's, thankfully, pretty rare for serious accidents to happen at the speeds that occur when descending.
I see your point, especially with regard to the accepted dangers of bunch sprint finishes, but it just doesn't seem right. Normal descending is one thing, encouraging riders (or encouraging DSs to push riders) to take big chances for a specific descending prize just seems irresponsible.
Are we going to have a go at Nibs for putting the heat on downhill in the Giro and encouraging Kruiswijk to take risks for a specific prize?
Oh come on, you're just being obtuse
No way! Rick being deliberately contrary and argumentative?
Go on then, explain the difference between the two. In the context of incentives to take excessive risks.
Kruiswijk knew that he was racing against Nibali, and could see how fast he needed to go to keep up.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Pross wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Salsiccia1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Point being; bunch finishes and dodgy furniture pose more risks to cyclists than descending, and it's, thankfully, pretty rare for serious accidents to happen at the speeds that occur when descending.
I see your point, especially with regard to the accepted dangers of bunch sprint finishes, but it just doesn't seem right. Normal descending is one thing, encouraging riders (or encouraging DSs to push riders) to take big chances for a specific descending prize just seems irresponsible.
Are we going to have a go at Nibs for putting the heat on downhill in the Giro and encouraging Kruiswijk to take risks for a specific prize?
Oh come on, you're just being obtuse
No way! Rick being deliberately contrary and argumentative?
Go on then, explain the difference between the two. In the context of incentives to take excessive risks.
The difference is that in one situation the risk is a necessary part of achieving the aim of the sport whereas in the other it is an additional risk being introduced for no apparent reason and is not an integral part of the history of the sport. If people want to introduce a road version of downhilling / downhill skiing that's fine and would be entered by people seeking those particular risks. The difference is subtle but it is definitely a difference.0 -
OK, so the difference in incentives and risk in isolation is context and the weight of history?
I.e. one incentive to take risk has always been there, but because this one is new it's dangerous?
Arguably, the tricky descent at a keypoint of the race is much more dangerous, in the sense that it can force riders who are uncomfortable racing downhill to go fast. I'll dig out some of the grief Andy Pandy got on here in the 2011 Tour if you want. This competition is a take-or-leave competition.0 -
So what is so spectacular about pressing the refresh key on the Gazzetta website waiting for a list of numbers to come up? Because that's how you'd get to view this 'contest'.meanredspider wrote:RichN95 wrote:
You think? It would be won by a local rider who gets deliberately dropped from the gruppetto or the breakaway near the summit to give them a 30-60s head start and then catches them up. It will be unseen by even the other riders. No-one where the cameras are will usually give a damn. If the timed descent is the last one of the day, Eurosport will have switched to another sport before the contenders have finished it.meanredspider wrote:As a spectacle, I think it would be far more interesting than an ascent. Add intermediate timing "gates" to add interest. I know I'd tune in to watch.
Yup, I do.
You best you'll get is watching a couple of riders clip off the front of the lead group and gain maybe 20 seconds before later finding out on twitter that the grupetto went a minute faster.Twitter: @RichN950 -
in that case none of us have seen the actual descents and what they had planned for safety measures.Rick Chasey wrote:sherer wrote:if they only allowed it in dry conditions and also only on certain descents that had netting etc then it would be more acceptable. Didn't read the full rules of the comp though, was it all descents ?
Nah. Specified ones.
All a mute point now its been canned.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Arguably, the tricky descent at a keypoint of the race is much more dangerous, in the sense that it can force riders who are uncomfortable racing downhill to go fast. I'll dig out some of the grief Andy Pandy got on here in the 2011 Tour if you want. This competition is a take-or-leave competition.
That's a really good point. Hadn't thought of it like that.0 -
Andy Pandy grief on the forum, after complaining about dangerous descents (on which he lost time).He's gone way down in my estimation - so much so that I'd even rather see Evans win!The girl was also moaning about the dangerous descent yesterday as well, can't understand why guys like Stuart O'Grady and Cancellara would want to work their butts off all day just to see these whips complaining about 'it's dangerous', more like we aren’t any good at descending so let's not finish on a descent........
Why don't the Shlecks take up knitting or keeping chickens?
Something about heat and a kitchen me thinks.honestly he should be thrown off the TdF for comments like thatI'm rubbish going downhill and uphill, I'm also in my mid forties and have a bad back. Perhaps Andy can get ASO to design a TdF that I can win..
Honestly, the look on his face when the camera pulled alongside him on the final run in yesterday was priceless. As if the other boys had taken his football and wouldn't let him play.0
