Prize for going downhill a bit quicker (than everyone else)

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

A good point I saw made elsewhere is that it would encourage amateurs to test themselves against the pros and put themselves at necessary risk. (I'm sure they do a bit anyway, but this would actually promote it).

These are the same people who ruin my fun and flag strava segments for descents.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

A good point I saw made elsewhere is that it would encourage amateurs to test themselves against the pros and put themselves at necessary risk. (I'm sure they do a bit anyway, but this would actually promote it).

These are the same people who ruin my fun and flag strava segments for descents.

+1 I'm too big to get up the leaderboard on climbs but the flat and especially the descents is where I can hold the KoM - and, before anybody says the boring stuff about Strava being rubbish, my part of the Highlands is small enough for most of us to know each other or, at least, know of each other so it's properly "fun".

If you don't want to take the risk, don't take the risk.

bobmcstuff

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.

I think there's a big difference in severity of consequence and therefore risk levels; crashing at 60mph in a plastic hat and some lycra can result in very bad things happening to you. Whereas most F1 accidents result in the driver walking away, even at 2 or 3 times the speed. Same for superbikes. Unless the riders start donning leathers at the top of the Stelvio I don't think you can get away from that.

I've also been involved in enough skiing accidents to know it's generally much lower consequence than coming off my road bike, as you tend to slide (apart from that one time when I broke my back )

Also people have been complaining about road furniture for years, it's not "part of the spectacle" but more a necessary evil since you need generally to have races finish in towns/cities. Whereas a fastest descending competition definitely is avoidable!

meanredspider

bobmcstuff wrote:

I think there's a big difference in severity of consequence and therefore risk levels; crashing at 60mph in a plastic hat and some lycra can result in very bad things happening to you. Whereas most F1 accidents result in the driver walking away, even at 2 or 3 times the speed. Same for superbikes. Unless the riders start donning leathers at the top of the Stelvio I don't think you can get away from that.

I've also been involved in enough skiing accidents to know it's generally much lower consequence than coming off my road bike, as you tend to slide (apart from that one time when I broke my back )

Also people have been complaining about road furniture for years, it's not "part of the spectacle" but more a necessary evil since you need generally to have races finish in towns/cities. Whereas a fastest descending competition definitely is avoidable!

i think you miss the point. The reason why lots more people don't get hurt or killed in these sports isn't down to safety gear it's down to people managing risk. There thousands of people, for instance, involved in amateur motorsport every weekend. The reason why there isn't a tragic Billy Monger type accident (or worse) at every event isn't because they can't happen but because people drive within their limits and take care for each other. If we're saying that cyclists are too stupid to do that, then let's just say it.

As for city centres - why must they finish there? Could it be money? So money being involved in some risks is OK and not in others? I'm playing devil's advocate a bit but I see this often in pro cycling discussions (as someone with only a passing interest) - debates about risk that seem to totally ignore the myriad risks that already exist. If racing down a hill is dangerous just don't race down a hill. People are still going to ride as fast as they can down them whether that's the breakaway or the chasing group or the rider who has had a mechanical who is trying to get back with the bunch.

bobmcstuff

meanredspider wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I think there's a big difference in severity of consequence and therefore risk levels; crashing at 60mph in a plastic hat and some lycra can result in very bad things happening to you. Whereas most F1 accidents result in the driver walking away, even at 2 or 3 times the speed. Same for superbikes. Unless the riders start donning leathers at the top of the Stelvio I don't think you can get away from that.

I've also been involved in enough skiing accidents to know it's generally much lower consequence than coming off my road bike, as you tend to slide (apart from that one time when I broke my back )

Also people have been complaining about road furniture for years, it's not "part of the spectacle" but more a necessary evil since you need generally to have races finish in towns/cities. Whereas a fastest descending competition definitely is avoidable!

i think you miss the point. The reason why lots more people don't get hurt or killed in these sports isn't down to safety gear it's down to people managing risk. There thousands of people, for instance, involved in amateur motorsport every weekend. The reason why there isn't a tragic Billy Monger type accident (or worse) at every event isn't because they can't happen but because people drive within their limits and take care for each other. If we're saying that cyclists are too stupid to do that, then let's just say it.

As for city centres - why must they finish there? Could it be money? So money being involved in some risks is OK and not in others? I'm playing devil's advocate a bit but I see this often in pro cycling discussions (as someone with only a passing interest) - debates about risk that seem to totally ignore the myriad risks that already exist. If racing down a hill is dangerous just don't race down a hill. People are still going to ride as fast as they can down them whether that's the breakaway or the chasing group or the rider who has had a mechanical who is trying to get back with the bunch.

I don't think comparing amateur motorsport to professional cycling makes much sense, like I said there's plenty of crashes in professional motorsport. There must be at least one crash every grand prix.

I also think if you were to invent cycle racing today they wouldn't look the same (same goes for lots of other sports), but that's where we are. If there are already myriad risks, why add more?

meanredspider

bobmcstuff wrote:

I don't think comparing amateur motorsport to professional cycling makes much sense, like I said there's plenty of crashes in professional motorsport. There must be at least one crash every grand prix.

I also think if you were to invent cycle racing today they wouldn't look the same (same goes for lots of other sports), but that's where we are. If there are already myriad risks, why add more?

I think it's perfectly acceptable comparison: it's people managing risk in a highly competitive environment.

Downhill MTB is pretty new and has plenty of hard objects to hit at speed.

To my last point in my last post, I don't think they would have added more risk - it's a race, there's a descent - people will push hard.

inseine

They've knocked it on the head. So they did listen

DeVlaeminck

bobmcstuff wrote:

I also think if you were to invent cycle racing today they wouldn't look the same (same goes for lots of other sports), but that's where we are. If there are already myriad risks, why add more?

I think that's it. Road racing entails a degree of risk as part of the sport - we accept it because for road racing to look like the sport we know that risk is unavoidable and everyone that comes into the sport knows the risks.

This new idea is an additional risk - it isn't part of the deal when you take up the sport.

dish_dash

DeVlaeminck wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I also think if you were to invent cycle racing today they wouldn't look the same (same goes for lots of other sports), but that's where we are. If there are already myriad risks, why add more?

I think that's it. Road racing entails a degree of risk as part of the sport - we accept it because for road racing to look like the sport we know that risk is unavoidable and everyone that comes into the sport knows the risks.

This new idea is an additional risk - it isn't part of the deal when you take up the sport.

But you don't have to take part if you don't want to...

salsiccia1

dish_dash wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I also think if you were to invent cycle racing today they wouldn't look the same (same goes for lots of other sports), but that's where we are. If there are already myriad risks, why add more?

I think that's it. Road racing entails a degree of risk as part of the sport - we accept it because for road racing to look like the sport we know that risk is unavoidable and everyone that comes into the sport knows the risks.

This new idea is an additional risk - it isn't part of the deal when you take up the sport.

But you don't have to take part if you don't want to...

Unless your DS 'encourages' you to

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

my part of the Highlands is small enough for most of us to know each other or, at least, know of each other so it's properly "fun".

.

It's the other extreme for me. So many people on every segment, I get a very good idea of where I sit amongst all strava users.

dish_dash

Salsiccia1 wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I also think if you were to invent cycle racing today they wouldn't look the same (same goes for lots of other sports), but that's where we are. If there are already myriad risks, why add more?

I think that's it. Road racing entails a degree of risk as part of the sport - we accept it because for road racing to look like the sport we know that risk is unavoidable and everyone that comes into the sport knows the risks.

This new idea is an additional risk - it isn't part of the deal when you take up the sport.

But you don't have to take part if you don't want to...

Unless your DS 'encourages' you to

Still don't have to... geez, do we give riders no agency?

inseine

dish_dash wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I also think if you were to invent cycle racing today they wouldn't look the same (same goes for lots of other sports), but that's where we are. If there are already myriad risks, why add more?

I think that's it. Road racing entails a degree of risk as part of the sport - we accept it because for road racing to look like the sport we know that risk is unavoidable and everyone that comes into the sport knows the risks.

This new idea is an additional risk - it isn't part of the deal when you take up the sport.

But you don't have to take part if you don't want to...

Unless your DS 'encourages' you to

Still don't have to... geez, do we give riders no agency?

Riders are probablay their own worst enimies when it comes to taking risks, they don't need encouraging.

rick_chasey

Is that before or after we chastise the slow downhill and praise the fast?

salsiccia1

dish_dash wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I also think if you were to invent cycle racing today they wouldn't look the same (same goes for lots of other sports), but that's where we are. If there are already myriad risks, why add more?

I think that's it. Road racing entails a degree of risk as part of the sport - we accept it because for road racing to look like the sport we know that risk is unavoidable and everyone that comes into the sport knows the risks.

This new idea is an additional risk - it isn't part of the deal when you take up the sport.

But you don't have to take part if you don't want to...

Unless your DS 'encourages' you to

Still don't have to... geez, do we give riders no agency?

Not a lot, given past history. Some people need saving from themselves. And if you're riding for a lower-profile team that is looking for any publicity, and your DS is talking about next year's contract... You can see where that might lead.

It's just unnecessarily adding to the risk. Obviously descending is part of the game, and some riders are better/more confident than others. I've always had sympathy for riders like A Schleck and Pinot who struggled with it. But doing something artificial and gimmicky that might encourage riders to go beyond their abilities just doesn't sit easily with me.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

my part of the Highlands is small enough for most of us to know each other or, at least, know of each other so it's properly "fun".

.

It's the other extreme for me. So many people on every segment, I get a very good idea of where I sit amongst all strava users.

There's a lot of people (hundreds though rather than 1000s) but it's the same few names that appear in the top 10 and I know who I'm "competing" against in most cases. It's much nicer than when you're just a number in a mass.

Pross

meanredspider wrote:

If we're saying that cyclists are too stupid to do that, then let's just say it.

Well, I don't know if you race but I've seen plenty of examples of riders who will risk oncoming traffic just to move up the bunch. In one race I did, three or four riders were at the back of the bunch in the neutralised zone and as soon as the flag dropped they went up the wrong side of the road with an artic coming towards them then forced their way in nearly causing a pile up (about two miles later someone did similar and did cause a pile up). These are examples of amateurs taking ridiculous risks when racing isn't even at a critical stage. Put them at the end of the race where they've got a chance of picking up a licence point and, as anyone on here who has raced will know, in many cases brains go out the window and anything that gains an advantage goes no matter what the risk to fellow competitors. So yes, when you make something competitive some people will take undue risks.

I don't believe that doesn't happen in Motorsport, I know a friend who races motorbikes complains of similar behaviour to that which we get in cycle racing and I helped move several rally cars that have ended up on their roof due to drivers over-estimating their ability.

argyllflyer

I'm not getting why this would be so different to stages that finish with a downhill off a summit into a finish line? If the GC is alive, far more at stake than a few thousand euro.

tailwindhome

DeVlaeminck wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

I also think if you were to invent cycle racing today they wouldn't look the same (same goes for lots of other sports), but that's where we are. If there are already myriad risks, why add more?

I think that's it. Road racing entails a degree of risk as part of the sport - we accept it because for road racing to look like the sport we know that risk is unavoidable and everyone that comes into the sport knows the risks.

This new idea is an additional risk - it isn't part of the deal when you take up the sport.

This
It's a bike race. Not a Red Bull event.
That's that sorted

Lanterne_Rogue

One thing that is different about offering a prize is that usually there's no gain for descending like an idiot - 95% of the time or more the group a rider was in will come back together on the flat (as just one example, and for all the hype, Nibali rarely does any lasting damage on a descent). So why bother bombing off the frontof your group when it'll just leave you working on your own shortly afterwards? Offering any kind of prize, or publicity, changes the risk/reward balance.

meanredspider

Pross wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

If we're saying that cyclists are too stupid to do that, then let's just say it.

Well, I don't know if you race but I've seen plenty of examples of riders who will risk oncoming traffic just to move up the bunch. In one race I did, three or four riders were at the back of the bunch in the neutralised zone and as soon as the flag dropped they went up the wrong side of the road with an artic coming towards them then forced their way in nearly causing a pile up (about two miles later someone did similar and did cause a pile up). These are examples of amateurs taking ridiculous risks when racing isn't even at a critical stage. Put them at the end of the race where they've got a chance of picking up a licence point and, as anyone on here who has raced will know, in many cases brains go out the window and anything that gains an advantage goes no matter what the risk to fellow competitors. So yes, when you make something competitive some people will take undue risks.

I don't believe that doesn't happen in Motorsport, I know a friend who races motorbikes complains of similar behaviour to that which we get in cycle racing and I helped move several rally cars that have ended up on their roof due to drivers over-estimating their ability.

Maybe I race (cars) with a smarter group of people. I certainly race in a series where stupidity isn't tolerated (maybe why the races are way oversubscribed) by the organisers or the competitor group. We all know that our collective safety relies on our collective behaviour.

Pross

Safety issues aside, I'm still struggling to see what the attraction of the competition would have been with the logistical issues previously discussed. I would suggest that even the KoM category in Grand Tours has become a fairly inconsequential side show and only shows who is best at getting in long, forlorn breaks on lumpy days rather than who is the best climber. As someone else has pointed out, Red Bull give people the chance to watch niche events like going flat out downhill and could probably find people who would do it faster than a pro cyclist. Maybe they could have a competition for the rider taking the most inventive route down a mountain in Danny Macaskill style too.

m.r.m.

Pro Race forum renaming suggestion: Helicopter parents for pro cyclists. :P

What if such competitions encourage TV coverage of thrilling descents? I personally love seeing professionals bombing down descents like Sagan or Nibali or that Youtube video of Evans and Gilbert going all out!

RichN95.

For those of you who feel cheated by no longer being able to see some nutcase hurtle down an iconic mountain with no regard for his personal safety, you may like to know the Guy Martin programme where he tries to kill himself in a soapbox car on Mont Ventoux is still available online.

m.r.m.

I don't really have strong feelings towards it either way. I'm glad you all do though. :P

bobmcstuff

Pross wrote:

Maybe they could have a competition for the rider taking the most inventive route down a mountain in Danny Macaskill style too.

That's pretty much how the red bull rampage works already (like a free ride event in skiing).

meanredspider

RichN95 wrote:

For those of you who feel cheated by no longer being able to see some nutcase hurtle down an iconic mountain with no regard for his personal safety, you may like to know the Guy Martin programme where he tries to kill himself in a soapbox car on Mont Ventoux is still available online.

I feel cheated by not seeing paid professional sportsmen at the top of their game demonstrate their bike handling skills on exactly the same course that they will ride anyway.

Well, I don't because I won't watch. Instead I'll be lobbying for a 30km/h speed limit on all races because it'll be a lot safer like that.... :roll: