Pro cyclists ......
Comments
-
Nice use of the phrase "straightforward line", I see what you did there0
-
He's just a troll...david37 said:
oh god hes one of those cancel cretinszest28 said:
I suggest you seek help since you are fine with people smashing other people in the barriers at 50 mph in order to win. Fabio could have been killed yesterday with the criminal behavior of Dylan who has done this multiple times in the past.blazing_saddles said:
You are a very disturbed individual.zest28 said:So we got pro cyclists like Dylan Groenewegen who cheats by pushing his opponents into the barriers (this is not the first time he has done it). What is even more crazy, is that other pro cyclists such as Simon Geschke from CCC are attacking the organizers rather than Dylan Groenewegen.
What the hell is wrong with these people? Dylan should be thrown in jail and every single pro cyclist who defends Dylan needs to be banned for life.
What is also disturbing is that Team ineos / sky still employs racists like Moscon who has abused black pro riders.
Luckly, Simon Geschke will be out of job soon hopefully considering that CCC will end their sponsership after 2020.
Seek help.
And if you are also fine that Moscon is still in pro cycling despite being a clear racist and also has a history assaulting other pro cyclists, that says enough about you.0 -
I still think "don't have downhill sprint finishes" is a pretty simple rule they could have. Quick and easy way to reduce the speeds by 10+ km/h. Certainly on stages where a bunch sprint is likely.
Presumably they could just change the route into town a little bit and have them finish the other way up the same street in this case.
In terms of the riding, it doesn't look a whole lot different to Sagan putting Cavendish into the barriers (that actually looked worse as Sagan elbowed). And less bad than Renshaw's headbutt incident. DQ seems to be a reasonable outcome. And we do see sprinters DQd or relegated for deviating from their lines reasonably frequently.0 -
Is there a difference between crashing at 70kph than there is in crashing at 80 kph? I think the effects will be pretty similar really0
-
Pross said:
You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between something be illegal i.e. a criminal act and something being against the rules of a sport so it's hard to take your opinions seriously.zest28 said:You also don’t shoot people (which is also illegal) because you see other people doing it?
People who commit such offenses are removed from society often permanently for good reason as they are a danger to others.
I guess you never rode 50 mph / 80 kmh on a bike have you? Because if you did, you would know that crashing at those speeds on a road bike can be lethal.
So purposely crashing people into barriers at such speeds is an attempt to kill someone.0 -
Yes.takethehighroad said:Is there a difference between crashing at 70kph than there is in crashing at 80 kph? I think the effects will be pretty similar really
Kinetic energy is a square law relationship, i.e., kinetic energy does not increase linearly with speed, it increases with the square of speed. So a 10km/h reduction in speed (12.5% in this case) gives a much more than 12.5% reduction in the raw kinetic energy involved - 23-24% by my very rough calcs for an 80kg rider. I don't think you can argue a 23% reduction in the kinetic energy is not significant.
Also gives more time for decision making as barriers, corners etc. will be coming up less quickly (12.5% more time to make a decision - that's a meaningful difference when you're travelling at that kind of speed).
Same logic as the "hit me at 30 there's an 80% chance I'll die, hit me at 20 there's an 80% chance I'll live" and other similar road safety campaigns.0 -
Crash a bike at 70kph, it'll hurt. Crash a bike at 80kph, it'll also hurt0
-
But it will hurt more. Not really sure why you are arguing this to be honest.takethehighroad said:Crash a bike at 70kph, it'll hurt. Crash a bike at 80kph, it'll also hurt
0 -
takethehighroad said:
Nice use of the phrase "straightforward line", I see what you did there
Closest case in point might be Jakobsen's team mate, Zdneck Sybar's crash at the Eneco Tour a few years back. This was an impact 20 kms slower and with the most commonly used, inter-link barriers. Stybar came to a dead stop, plunged straight over his handlebars and vertically impacted the tarmac with his face.takethehighroad said:Is there a difference between crashing at 70kph than there is in crashing at 80 kph? I think the effects will be pretty similar really
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAucWrd_K0I
The result?
Zdenek Stybar (Omega Pharma-QuickStep) should be allowed to leave hospital this weekend, according to his team manager Patrick Lefevere.
Stybar came down heavily in the finale of stage four of the Eneco Tour, when he was squeezed into the barriers by a crash. The defending champion went toppling over his handlebars and landed on his face. Blood could be seen pouring from his face as the doctors attended to him.
The Omega Pharma-QuickStep manager visited Stybar, along with several of his teammates ahead of stage five of the Eneco Tour. He says that the Czech national champion underwent surgery last night. “On Thursday, a surgeon together with a dental surgeon carried out a two hour and 45 minute operation on Stybar, under anaesthesia. Everything is put back in place,” he explained.
“After the operation, he will need time for the wounds to heal. His face was still very swollen.”
Speed and any kinetic energy calculations are only one factor it crash injuries.
Otherwise, why do most collarbone breaks occur at slow speed?
A more general view might be the severity of injuries are caused by a combination of speed and how a rider impacts terra firma.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I guess my point is more it’s very difficult to iron out, is and always will happen and will be incredibly difficult to police.blazing_saddles said:
Did you read my post?rick_chasey said:
Honest question is what Groenewegen did really that bad?blazing_saddles said:I am amazed by the response of many fans.
Blame the course, blame the barriers, blame the organizers, blame the UCI, talk about modernisation and rider safety, but don't apportion any blame to the rider because he was "only doing what riders have always done and you can't stop top sprinters from doing it..."
Wrong, you can stop riders doing it and we all know how. As DeVlaeminck has suggested:
"Short bans imposed more consistently will be more effective."
After all, what punishment is "relegation to the back of the group," to a sprinter, who only thinks in terms of coming first?
That's why they do it all the time.
I see it happen *a lot*. Most sprints in fact. It’s only that Fabio decided to go round rather than squeeze the brakes.
DQ seems reasonable, no?
For someone who for months has been arguing about the need for regular re-evaluation of "historical" acts, you are doing the opposite here.
I haven't got the knives out for Groenewegen.
I am saying it is no longer acceptable to deny rider culpability on the grounds of: " he did nothing wrong because sprinting has always been like that..."
You of all people should recognise the need for change, not just in terms of safety precautions, but in using the actual rules as a deterrent to potentially dangerous acts.
I can't help but think that if this had been Nacer Bouhanni, this debate would have taken a much more straightforward line.
Most roads aren’t straight and aren’t equally wide the whole stretch so how would you police?
0 -
Collarbone breaks happen in slower speed crashes because the rider has time to stick their arms out to break their fall - and the collarbone is essentially an engineered weak link, which is why it happens so often. Breaks to protect other bones and usually heals naturally and fairly quickly.0
-
Well, it's been mostly reasonable discussion after people stopped engaging with his comments.ddraver said:We are flipping suckers for a troll in ProRace innit...
Although basically a copy of the same discussions in the other threads!0 -
We are working around the problem.ddraver said:We are flipping suckers for a troll in ProRace innit...
I would agree.rick_chasey said:
I guess my point is more it’s very difficult to iron out, is and always will happen and will be incredibly difficult to police.blazing_saddles said:
Did you read my post?rick_chasey said:
Honest question is what Groenewegen did really that bad?blazing_saddles said:I am amazed by the response of many fans.
Blame the course, blame the barriers, blame the organizers, blame the UCI, talk about modernisation and rider safety, but don't apportion any blame to the rider because he was "only doing what riders have always done and you can't stop top sprinters from doing it..."
Wrong, you can stop riders doing it and we all know how. As DeVlaeminck has suggested:
"Short bans imposed more consistently will be more effective."
After all, what punishment is "relegation to the back of the group," to a sprinter, who only thinks in terms of coming first?
That's why they do it all the time.
I see it happen *a lot*. Most sprints in fact. It’s only that Fabio decided to go round rather than squeeze the brakes.
DQ seems reasonable, no?
For someone who for months has been arguing about the need for regular re-evaluation of "historical" acts, you are doing the opposite here.
I haven't got the knives out for Groenewegen.
I am saying it is no longer acceptable to deny rider culpability on the grounds of: " he did nothing wrong because sprinting has always been like that..."
You of all people should recognise the need for change, not just in terms of safety precautions, but in using the actual rules as a deterrent to potentially dangerous acts.
I can't help but think that if this had been Nacer Bouhanni, this debate would have taken a much more straightforward line.
Most roads aren’t straight and aren’t equally wide the whole stretch so how would you police?
That's why having a cote d'azur is a non starter. How would that work, should a finish be in a modest town, where the streets aren't very wide?
It's always going to be an issue when finishes are involved in a bidding process.
Hell, I never said it was easy.
We have a set of rules, it's time they were properly employed and rider sanctions stepped up.
Might not be so effective with the current crop, but future generations of sprinters would benefit.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
The least useful example provided. You would just have riders using it as a way of getting other DQ'd. Also the last thing needed during sprints is narrowing of road area.TheBigBean said:I'll say it again. Paint a hard shoulder. Job done.
0 -
Disagree. It;s the flick of the elbow and shoulder when they're already touching that shows this is worse than other sprint clashes.rick_chasey said:
Honest question is what Groenewegen did really that bad?blazing_saddles said:I am amazed by the response of many fans.
Blame the course, blame the barriers, blame the organizers, blame the UCI, talk about modernisation and rider safety, but don't apportion any blame to the rider because he was "only doing what riders have always done and you can't stop top sprinters from doing it..."
Wrong, you can stop riders doing it and we all know how. As DeVlaeminck has suggested:
"Short bans imposed more consistently will be more effective."
After all, what punishment is "relegation to the back of the group," to a sprinter, who only thinks in terms of coming first?
That's why they do it all the time.
I see it happen *a lot*. Most sprints in fact. It’s only that Fabio decided to go round rather than squeeze the brakes.
DQ seems reasonable, no?0 -
The head on camera is generous to him. The overhead, slightly rear angle shows he put the elbow in when he realised he was being passed. I think it was worse than the usual veering off his line but the poor infrastructure made the outcome worse.rick_chasey said:
Honest question is what Groenewegen did really that bad?blazing_saddles said:I am amazed by the response of many fans.
Blame the course, blame the barriers, blame the organizers, blame the UCI, talk about modernisation and rider safety, but don't apportion any blame to the rider because he was "only doing what riders have always done and you can't stop top sprinters from doing it..."
Wrong, you can stop riders doing it and we all know how. As DeVlaeminck has suggested:
"Short bans imposed more consistently will be more effective."
After all, what punishment is "relegation to the back of the group," to a sprinter, who only thinks in terms of coming first?
That's why they do it all the time.
I see it happen *a lot*. Most sprints in fact. It’s only that Fabio decided to go round rather than squeeze the brakes.
DQ seems reasonable, no?0 -
Was the problem in this sprint a narrow road, or that two sprinters were sprinting next to the barriers?50x11 said:
The least useful example provided. You would just have riders using it as a way of getting other DQ'd. Also the last thing needed during sprints is narrowing of road area.TheBigBean said:I'll say it again. Paint a hard shoulder. Job done.
So, in this case Jakobsen would have been pushed into the DQ area and wouldn't have crashed. There would then have been an argument about who should be DQed. Sounds like a much better outcome to me.0 -
I wanted to convert it to the unpopular pro race opinions thread as a guide on how to troll properly.ddraver said:We are flipping suckers for a troll in ProRace innit...
0 -
Exactly. Push someone into the hard shoulder and you get a dq. No change for the pusher, much better for the pushee.TheBigBean said:
Was the problem in this sprint a narrow road, or that two sprinters were sprinting next to the barriers?50x11 said:
The least useful example provided. You would just have riders using it as a way of getting other DQ'd. Also the last thing needed during sprints is narrowing of road area.TheBigBean said:I'll say it again. Paint a hard shoulder. Job done.
So, in this case Jakobsen would have been pushed into the DQ area and wouldn't have crashed. There would then have been an argument about who should be DQed. Sounds like a much better outcome to me.
0 -
I want to agree with your hard shoulder idea but I don't want to add to the problem!! 😤TheBigBean said:
I wanted to convert it to the unpopular pro race opinions thread as a guide on how to troll properly.ddraver said:We are flipping suckers for a troll in ProRace innit...
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
The cote d'azur is a non-starter. You can't expect towns to start painting and removing road markings, and it'll just narrow the road further.
There are things that can be done: appropriate barriers, AND harsher punishments for riding dangerously. It doesn't have to be, and nor should it be one or the other.It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.0 -
salsiccia1 said:
The cote d'azur is a non-starter. You can't expect towns to start painting and removing road markings, and it'll just narrow the road further.
There are things that can be done: appropriate barriers, AND harsher punishments for riding dangerously. It doesn't have to be, and nor should it be one or the other.
I read the first line of this completely out of context had thought that the Tour start and Nice will have to moved.Twitter: @RichN950 -
These were independent things. Here's an unpopular opinion:ddraver said:
I want to agree with your hard shoulder idea but I don't want to add to the problem!! 😤TheBigBean said:
I wanted to convert it to the unpopular pro race opinions thread as a guide on how to troll properly.ddraver said:We are flipping suckers for a troll in ProRace innit...
Strong teams in GTs are overrated. It's nearly always the guy with the best legs that wins.0 -
On topic, a town that pays to have a race finish there is going to struggle to paint two 500m lines and remove them afterwards?
0 -
In Salsiccia's haste to dismiss a really simple idea he acidentaly makes a good point...it shouldn't be a côté d'Azur but a Red sprinters line 1 rider wide so that a Gronewegen type sprinter can't shut the door on someone who's about to beat himTheBigBean said:On topic, a town that pays to have a race finish there is going to struggle to paint two 500m lines and remove them afterwards?
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
I've thought of another good use for the hard shoulder. Lead out riders wanting to drop back and not worrying about being DQed.
0 -
The finish line is painted on the road, but somehow the towns survives the ensuing apocalypse. It's clearly a delicate matter, but don't you think red would be pushing thing a bit? What about something softer like yellow?ddraver said:
In Salsiccia's haste to dismiss a really simple idea he acidentaly makes a good point...it shouldn't be a côté d'Azur but a Red sprinters line 1 rider wide so that a Gronewegen type sprinter can't shut the door on someone who's about to beat himTheBigBean said:On topic, a town that pays to have a race finish there is going to struggle to paint two 500m lines and remove them afterwards?
0 -
No.TheBigBean said:On topic, a town that pays to have a race finish there is going to struggle to paint two 500m lines and remove them afterwards?
But towns being what they are, can have nice wide roads and not such nice wide roads.
Or are the towns that bid to be DQF'd by tape measure?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
It's very rare that a flat, let alone downhill finish, is narrow. But in the end, does it matter? Those roads that can be narrowed by two rider widths can be narrowed, and things will be better in those races for minimal cost and inconvenience.blazing_saddles said:
No.TheBigBean said:On topic, a town that pays to have a race finish there is going to struggle to paint two 500m lines and remove them afterwards?
But towns being what they are, can have nice wide roads and not such nice wide roads.
Or are the towns that bid to be DQF'd by tape measure?0
