TDF 2021:- Stage 3, Lorient > Pontivy 182.9 km **Spoilers**

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

The Haig crash, it goes from a fast fairly wide road

To a narrow bridge

To a sharp left hand turn.

Only those who were at the front made it to the finish without losing time. How is the lesson from this going to be that the bunch should have been strung out? Who wants to be away from the front?

This is exactly what I mean about the shape of the peloton. It's 4km to go, it's narrow, they're doing 60+kph and it's basically gutter-to-gutter going into a tight corner *they all know is there*.

I don't think you see that in any other race.

But the guys you see at the front are the ones who made it to the sprint. Anyone further back than maybe the first 20 or so doesn't get through without at least being delayed. Everyone learns the lesson again that you need to make sure it's you at the front. Who's going to make it strung out?

The thing that has changed in the last 10/15 years is that in order to ride at the front, a rider needs to take his whole team with him. Sagan, for example, almost never misses a split, but doesn't require 7 other riders with him all the time. If other riders rode like that then it would be less of a problem.

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

The Haig crash, it goes from a fast fairly wide road

To a narrow bridge

To a sharp left hand turn.

Only those who were at the front made it to the finish without losing time. How is the lesson from this going to be that the bunch should have been strung out? Who wants to be away from the front?

This is exactly what I mean about the shape of the peloton. It's 4km to go, it's narrow, they're doing 60+kph and it's basically gutter-to-gutter going into a tight corner *they all know is there*.

I don't think you see that in any other race.

But the guys you see at the front are the ones who made it to the sprint. Anyone further back than maybe the first 20 or so doesn't get through without at least being delayed. Everyone learns the lesson again that you need to make sure it's you at the front. Who's going to make it strung out?

The riders who don't want to crash I guess.

I mean, it is not rocket science that everyone always wants to be in the front and only some people can be.

I guess it's a feature of the Tour that riders will take the risk they won't in say paris nice.

Maybe the Tour is so big they need to move off small roads. That would be a shame and make it a duller race.

bobmcstuff

kingstongraham said:

The Haig crash, it goes from a fast fairly wide road

To a narrow bridge

To a sharp left hand turn.

Only those who were at the front made it to the finish without losing time. How is the lesson from this going to be that the bunch should have been strung out? Who wants to be away from the front?

My first thought when the first riders came through there is "there's going to be a crash". Split seconds later there was.

At least I think that's where it was, there was a bit with a bit of a chicane where there was a crash. There were so many crashes it's hard to tell exactly...

No_Ta_Doctor

I think extending the 3km rule for sprints stages could help - not taking times from before the finish, just having leeway for riders caught in a crash.

The issue is that by 3km the sprint trains are already full gas and fighting for position, mixing gc trains with that is madness. If the GC trains could safely get out of the way beforehand then the pressure in the finale, with everyone trying to move up at once would be reduced. It wouldn't just push the problem to earlier, as the sprint train move up would be largely after the GC train drop back.

Obviously it depends on where the pressure points are, the narrowing yesterday was pretty far out, but the limit could be set stage by stage

mididoctors

There has always been mass crashes .. passage de gois was obvious course related back in 99 but the le havre 95 crash was really rider created . Scott Sunderland was lead rider of a fast peloton big roads large roundabouts stuff nothing out of the normal ..Scott took everyone round a roundabout and just wasn't looking where he was going and left the road via the barriers rather than the exit ...everyone was following and the entire peloton just shot off the road. Remarkably no one seriously hurt .

Then there was the spinichi bar crash season where random mass pile ups happened anytime in the race ....

I think in the actual sprint there used to be more crashes . Usually one every sprint stage .

elbowloh

Both Greipel and Ewan were interviewed pre-race and highlighted how "technical" the finish was, seemed like a codeword for it not being that safe.

rick_chasey

mididoctors said:

There has always been mass crashes .. passage de gois was obvious course related back in 99 but the le havre 95 crash was really rider created . Scott Sunderland was lead rider of a fast peloton big roads large roundabouts stuff nothing out of the normal ..Scott took everyone round a roundabout and just wasn't looking where he was going and left the road via the barriers rather than the exit ...everyone was following and the entire peloton just shot off the road. Remarkably no one seriously hurt .

Then there was the spinichi bar crash season where random mass pile ups happened anytime in the race ....

I think in the actual sprint there used to be more crashes . Usually one every sprint stage .

The big mega crashes seem to be happening more often and the Tour seems to have so many more crashes than pretty much any other race.

kingstongraham

bobmcstuff said:

kingstongraham said:

The Haig crash, it goes from a fast fairly wide road

To a narrow bridge

To a sharp left hand turn.

Only those who were at the front made it to the finish without losing time. How is the lesson from this going to be that the bunch should have been strung out? Who wants to be away from the front?

My first thought when the first riders came through there is "there's going to be a crash". Split seconds later there was.

At least I think that's where it was, there was a bit with a bit of a chicane where there was a crash. There were so many crashes it's hard to tell exactly...

Same - it felt inevitable.

I think it's the same as the dodgy finishes in towns in the Giro this year. If you are going to design a stage that has a finish that is for a large group of sprinters to contest, maybe don't put in a fast downhill sharp left hand turn on a narrow road with 4km to go.

mididoctors

rick_chasey said:

mididoctors said:

There has always been mass crashes .. passage de gois was obvious course related back in 99 but the le havre 95 crash was really rider created . Scott Sunderland was lead rider of a fast peloton big roads large roundabouts stuff nothing out of the normal ..Scott took everyone round a roundabout and just wasn't looking where he was going and left the road via the barriers rather than the exit ...everyone was following and the entire peloton just shot off the road. Remarkably no one seriously hurt .

Then there was the spinichi bar crash season where random mass pile ups happened anytime in the race ....

I think in the actual sprint there used to be more crashes . Usually one every sprint stage .

The big mega crashes seem to be happening more often and the Tour seems to have so many more crashes than pretty much any other race.

Tour always did I think .

Mass crashes have changed in nature I think rather than less of them . The tension in the peloton and stress Is the major factor I think ... Tinkering with the rules to alleviate some of that is probably where solutions lie . Not sure what those are

bobmcstuff

https://twitter.com/faustocoppi60/status/1409774898151571456?s=19

https://twitter.com/faustocoppi60/status/1409776630457896961?s=19

rick_chasey

Jumbo boss said they complained to the organisers during their June recon to no avail.

bobmcstuff

https://youtu.be/ARiPxP4an3A

Gilbert's view, quite interesting.

He says the riders proposed taking GC times at 5km and this was accepted by ASO, but rejected by UCI.

But does also say it was not all the fault of the parcours, the earlier crashes were more related to the riders. Although I was thinking, they all knew about the corners on the run in, so they were all pushing hard to be at the front for a while before they arrived there, which may have played a part in the earlier crashes. Had the cut been at 5km, perhaps the GC teams would have been less focused on staying right on the front before that point.

Pross

Lanterne_Rogue said:

Is there any overhead of the Haig crash? It's not clear from the footage I've seen that it's caused by the road constricting rather than someone simply going into a downhill corner too fast.

I'd thought that, it only showed in the background but it looked like someone just completely misjudged the corner.

I know it's different to an extent but at the Ronde you have the peloton going flat out into far tighter turns to get position onto the critical climbs and teh same going into Arenburg at P-R. OK they aren't on the approach to sprint but that battle for position is very similar so should we run those races on wider, non-technical roads too?

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Maybe the biggest problems is sending out everyone out together at the start, rather than splitting the riders by team into a number of groups and a decent starting gap of 5mins+ between them.

bobmcstuff

N0bodyOfTheGoat said:

Maybe the biggest problems is sending out everyone out together at the start, rather than splitting the riders by team into a number of groups and a decent starting gap of 5mins+ between them.

You joke, but lots of suggestion that having a prologue would make the early stages less nervy since there would be fewer riders with a chance of yellow...

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Jumbo boss said they complained to the organisers during their June recon to no avail.

So they crashed on a dead straight bit of road out of protest.

Pross

Also, if you take the GC times at 5km to go would you not then have an issue of half the peloton sitting up whilst the other half are going hard for a stage win and crashes from the sudden change in pace?

dabber

How about starting the first 5 stages in the Alps/Pyrenees all with mega uphill finishes.... then a middle week with a few sprint stages... then back to the mountains.
The first week should sort out a lot of over eager riding. Just joking of course.

bobmcstuff

Pross said:

Also, if you take the GC times at 5km to go would you not then have an issue of half the peloton sitting up whilst the other half are going hard for a stage win and crashes from the sudden change in pace?

We have the 3km rule already, why would it be different?

The reason they wanted to move it back on this stage was the specific pinch point at 4.2k to go. Where there was a crash.

above_the_cows

bobmcstuff said:

N0bodyOfTheGoat said:

Maybe the biggest problems is sending out everyone out together at the start, rather than splitting the riders by team into a number of groups and a decent starting gap of 5mins+ between them.

You joke, but lots of suggestion that having a prologue would make the early stages less nervy since there would be fewer riders with a chance of yellow...

I was just about to posit that as a possibility, that a prologue settles the sediment earlier so to speak.

kingstongraham

Overhead footage of the crash 4km to go on here at 10 seconds in. Touch of wheels.

https://twitter.com/GreenEDGEteam/status/1409587330000855042

Lanterne_Rogue

above_the_cows said:

bobmcstuff said:

N0bodyOfTheGoat said:

Maybe the biggest problems is sending out everyone out together at the start, rather than splitting the riders by team into a number of groups and a decent starting gap of 5mins+ between them.

You joke, but lots of suggestion that having a prologue would make the early stages less nervy since there would be fewer riders with a chance of yellow...

I was just about to posit that as a possibility, that a prologue settles the sediment earlier so to speak.

There were gaps on GC as big as a prologue would produce yesterday though, so it's hardly a magic bullet.

kingstongraham

Alaphillippe very lucky to avoid that

darkhairedlord

above_the_cows said:

bobmcstuff said:

N0bodyOfTheGoat said:

Maybe the biggest problems is sending out everyone out together at the start, rather than splitting the riders by team into a number of groups and a decent starting gap of 5mins+ between them.

You joke, but lots of suggestion that having a prologue would make the early stages less nervy since there would be fewer riders with a chance of yellow...

I was just about to posit that as a possibility, that a prologue settles the sediment earlier so to speak.

A team-hillclimb.

blazing_saddles

Pross said:

Also, if you take the GC times at 5km to go would you not then have an issue of half the peloton sitting up whilst the other half are going hard for a stage win and crashes from the sudden change in pace?

I had a listen to Horner's post stage analysis and he pointed out that the peloton began to get nervous 60kms from home and by the 50km mark, teams were already jostling for position.

Given the tweets about the increase in traffic calming measures in towns and cities and the fact that much of rural France doesn't have Californian style roads, I am not sure what the answer is, but I am sure that moving the 3km mark back further simply moves the danger zone back further, too.

One thing they could do, but would be very unpopular in France, is limit the number of teams to WT, plus one wildcard, cutting size of the peloton by 10%.

kingstongraham

Ineos weren't riding hard at the front because they thought their rider had a chance to get into yellow yesterday. I don't see why it would have been massively different if a prologue had put a few seconds between the contenders.

phreak

No_Ta_Doctor said:

I think extending the 3km rule for sprints stages could help - not taking times from before the finish, just having leeway for riders caught in a crash.

The issue is that by 3km the sprint trains are already full gas and fighting for position, mixing gc trains with that is madness. If the GC trains could safely get out of the way beforehand then the pressure in the finale, with everyone trying to move up at once would be reduced. It wouldn't just push the problem to earlier, as the sprint train move up would be largely after the GC train drop back.

Obviously it depends on where the pressure points are, the narrowing yesterday was pretty far out, but the limit could be set stage by stage

Weren't people going full gas at that point yesterday not so much because it was a sprint stage but because they wanted to put serious time into Roglic? As it is, the first few stages have seen bona fide time gaps between GC contenders so a ruling that only applies to crashes is not going to make crashes less likely as teams will still be gunning it so long as the finishes are punchy rather than pan flat.

Lanterne_Rogue

phreak said:

No_Ta_Doctor said:

I think extending the 3km rule for sprints stages could help - not taking times from before the finish, just having leeway for riders caught in a crash.

The issue is that by 3km the sprint trains are already full gas and fighting for position, mixing gc trains with that is madness. If the GC trains could safely get out of the way beforehand then the pressure in the finale, with everyone trying to move up at once would be reduced. It wouldn't just push the problem to earlier, as the sprint train move up would be largely after the GC train drop back.

Obviously it depends on where the pressure points are, the narrowing yesterday was pretty far out, but the limit could be set stage by stage

Weren't people going full gas at that point yesterday not so much because it was a sprint stage but because they wanted to put serious time into Roglic? As it is, the first few stages have seen bona fide time gaps between GC contenders so a ruling that only applies to crashes is not going to make crashes less likely as teams will still be gunning it so long as the finishes are punchy rather than pan flat.

Not hugely. It was mostly sprint teams + Ineos, who sit up there anyway. It's not like UAE suddenly barged to the front and started drilling it, and at 5km to go a sprint stage is always full bore.

ddraver

Lil Pete has an interesting take on this on the ITV podcast.

IMO what we need is a sort of GC Autobus from about 10km to go where they all bunch up at the back and ride in together. With a nod and wink from the organisers that they all got the same time, that would be perfect.

The most obvious difference between tours past and present is not that the print looks any different but that the rest of the peloton is one long, but chilled out, line behind and takes nearly a minute (with no gaps) to cross the line.

mididoctors

Lanterne_Rogue said:

above_the_cows said:

bobmcstuff said:

N0bodyOfTheGoat said:

Maybe the biggest problems is sending out everyone out together at the start, rather than splitting the riders by team into a number of groups and a decent starting gap of 5mins+ between them.

You joke, but lots of suggestion that having a prologue would make the early stages less nervy since there would be fewer riders with a chance of yellow...

I was just about to posit that as a possibility, that a prologue settles the sediment earlier so to speak.

There were gaps on GC as big as a prologue would produce yesterday though, so it's hardly a magic bullet.

Exactly . The GC gaps for 3 stages in where massive