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

mididoctors

Lanterne_Rogue said:

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.

Ineos are often kinda guilty of half wheeling it up from 60 k out .

tailwindhome

rick_chasey said:

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.

A top tier sprint team controlling and taking responsibility for the catch would help I think.

There must be 15 teams at the front there.

DeVlaeminck

Simplest solution might be to try moving the 3km rule further out on flat sprint stages - say even 10km - I could live without GC riders losing time because they were held up by a crash.

I'm sure somebody has already said why this might not work - and it wouldn't affect the general nervousness and bunching from 50ks - but it at least addresses some of the concerns about town centre finishes and numbers of riders pushing to stay up near the front.

I'd knock a rider off each team too.

Comparing to going back 15 years plus - Id be interested if helmet use brought in a degree of risk compensation. I'm not arguing for scrapping helmets I know that ship has sailed long ago but there is some research (some even addresses bicycle helmets) suggesting safety measures like helmets and seat belts can lead to more risk taking.

Lanterne_Rogue

tailwindhome said:

A top tier sprint team controlling and taking responsibility for the catch would help I think.

There must be 15 teams at the front there.

Now that's a point. It was noticeably narrower when DQS and AF merged forces at the front, albeit earlier in the stage - they were back to side by side later on. Maybe there's an impact of no longer having (say) HTC drilling it on everyone else's behalf.

One of the reasons that sort of thing disappeared was the cut to eight riders, allegedly. Maybe that just makes things worse rather than better, as everyone becomes even more risk averse (and counter-intuitively, increasing the risk as discussed above)?

TheBigBean

How about a time penalty for any team with more than three riders in the top 30 at certain pinch points in the race?

bobmcstuff

DeVlaeminck said:

Comparing to going back 15 years plus - Id be interested if helmet use brought in a degree of risk compensation. I'm not arguing for scrapping helmets I know that ship has sailed long ago but there is some research (some even addresses bicycle helmets) suggesting safety measures like helmets and seat belts can lead to more risk taking.

I've seen some of that for ski helmets, I think the problem with a lot of that research compares the same people before and after the intervention (i.e., going from no ski helmet to ski helmet), which tends to lead to some risk compensation. Similar with some avalanche safety measures.

Whereas most of the current peloton has probably barely ridden a bike without a helmet on (I know I haven't - and never driven without a seatbelt), and if it's something you've always grown up with then the level of risk compensation would be different.

pblakeney

I doubt that there is an easy answer or they'd have done it.
However, surely if GC are backing off at 3kms, 5kms, 8kms, whatever, then the time bonuses should be removed?

rick_chasey

tailwindhome said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

A top tier sprint team controlling and taking responsibility for the catch would help I think.

There must be 15 teams at the front there.

I think the level is much higher, so I think it's harder for a single team to take over.

mididoctors

What about a fixed time loss in last 10 k or so for some specific stages ... Say 20 secs IE no matter what happens on "this stage" if you are split from the majority bunch in the final you can only lose 20 secs or sum such

kingstongraham

They never let the break get much more than 2 minutes, so didn't need a concerted effort to reel them in. Catch was made with 7km to go.

rick_chasey

mididoctors said:

What about a fixed time loss in last 10 k or so for some specific stages ... Say 20 secs IE no matter what happens on "this stage" if you are split from the majority bunch in the final you can only lose 20 secs or sum such

Not being funny but what is the point of a GC race if you neutralise every flat stage.

mididoctors

DeVlaeminck said:

Comparing to going back 15 years plus - Id be interested if helmet use brought in a degree of risk compensation. I'm not arguing for scrapping helmets I know that ship has sailed long ago but there is some research (some even addresses bicycle helmets) suggesting safety measures like helmets and seat belts can lead to more risk taking.

You had to wear at least a hair net in Belgium and riders were often wearing helmets in sprints in the 90s . So not sure if it applies

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

mididoctors said:

What about a fixed time loss in last 10 k or so for some specific stages ... Say 20 secs IE no matter what happens on "this stage" if you are split from the majority bunch in the final you can only lose 20 secs or sum such

Not being funny but what is the point of a GC race if you neutralise every flat stage.

What do you think of the 3km rule?

focuszing723

What about another stage the next day so everybody can fixate on the next, errant fan, touch of wheels, lack of concentration, poor driving, conditions, sprint, bidon, musette, dog, cat, cow, sheep...

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

mididoctors said:

What about a fixed time loss in last 10 k or so for some specific stages ... Say 20 secs IE no matter what happens on "this stage" if you are split from the majority bunch in the final you can only lose 20 secs or sum such

Not being funny but what is the point of a GC race if you neutralise every flat stage.

What do you think of the 3km rule?

Instinctively don't like it but I can see where it is coming from. Ultimately they are racing from much further out and the obsession with getting in front of the bunch is speeding it up to the point you get these weird peloton where it's going 60kph gutter to gutter.

Apart from maybe the run into the Taaienberg and possibly the Arenberg I don't think you ever see a 60kph gutter-to-gutter peloton, and even then there is a recognition that once you're there you slot in to wherever you ended up.

This hurling around a narrow s-bend 4 wide is sort of cat 4 behaviour.

Jezyboy

mididoctors said:

What about a fixed time loss in last 10 k or so for some specific stages ... Say 20 secs IE no matter what happens on "this stage" if you are split from the majority bunch in the final you can only lose 20 secs or sum such

That's still a reasonably significant gap to make up.

I think taking GC time back an increased number of km before the finish may help. ATM you have ineos drilling to 3km then drifting when the sprint trains are really getting going.

10 km feels extremely generous, though. Otoh, the only real life conversation I've had regarding the tour so far is that it's not really bike racing when it's more of a destruction Derby.

mididoctors

Jezyboy said:

mididoctors said:

What about a fixed time loss in last 10 k or so for some specific stages ... Say 20 secs IE no matter what happens on "this stage" if you are split from the majority bunch in the final you can only lose 20 secs or sum such

That's still a reasonably significant gap to make up.

I think taking GC time back an increased number of km before the finish may help. ATM you have ineos drilling to 3km then drifting when the sprint trains are really getting going.

10 km feels extremely generous, though. Otoh, the only real life conversation I've had regarding the tour so far is that it's not really bike racing when it's more of a destruction Derby.

Open to variations

No_Ta_Doctor

For all of these suggestions they key is whether they allow racing should the circumstances arise. Imagine a chance for echelons 6 or 7 km out, but some rule meant that time differences were annulled. Nobody would be pleased with that. That's why I think the only workable system, short of a gentleman's agreement between teams, is an extension of the 3km rule where the course supports it. If you force a gap you gain the time. If you're held up by a crash you get the time of your group. You can still get difficult situations (eg you crash when the peloton is all together, someone forces a split later) but those are already possible in the current rules

mididoctors

Someone needs to big data every tdf off since full coverage at least . Where they happen how etc ..

kingstongraham

Jezyboy said:

mididoctors said:

What about a fixed time loss in last 10 k or so for some specific stages ... Say 20 secs IE no matter what happens on "this stage" if you are split from the majority bunch in the final you can only lose 20 secs or sum such

That's still a reasonably significant gap to make up.

I think taking GC time back an increased number of km before the finish may help. ATM you have ineos drilling to 3km then drifting when the sprint trains are really getting going.

10 km feels extremely generous, though. Otoh, the only real life conversation I've had regarding the tour so far is that it's not really bike racing when it's more of a destruction Derby.

Maybe have it as 3km with the possibility of adjusting it back where there is an obvious potential problem like yesterday's narrow descent.

RichN95.

There are various factors at play here. First at the Tour the GC is often won these days by less than a minute. So losing a couple of minutes due to a crash or a split in the peloton can be crucial. At least with a prologue any loses are down to the rider themselves.

With this in mind on early stages where everyone is fit and generally on a similar level a pinch point in the last 20km because a major strategic factor. So everyone wants to be near the front. If the roads are narrow then everyone compresses to maintain position, while on wider roads it is easier to move up. As a result riders have less room to make mistakes. And there will always be mistakes. People hung up on road furniture, but it doesn't often cause a crash as they are on wider roads and riders have room to manoever.

There are clearly wide roads available as they are riding on them for the first 20km today.

gsk82

Is the problem that everyone wants to be near the front but not at the front? It's rare you see a sprint team on the front for any length of time. They all want to hide, so are constantly riding fairly fast, but not fast fast.

blazing_saddles

RichN95. said:

There are various factors at play here. First at the Tour the GC is often won these days by less than a minute. So losing a couple of minutes due to a crash or a split in the peloton can be crucial. At least with a prologue any loses are down to the rider themselves.

With this in mind on early stages where everyone is fit and generally on a similar level a pinch point in the last 20km because a major strategic factor. So everyone wants to be near the front. If the roads are narrow then everyone compresses to maintain position, while on wider roads it is easier to move up. As a result riders have less room to make mistakes. And there will always be mistakes. People hung up on road furniture, but it doesn't often cause a crash as they are on wider roads and riders have room to manoever.

There are clearly wide roads available as they are riding on them for the first 20km today.

I am not sure I agree with you there.
One race, two crashes: Tirreno Adriatico. Simon Carr had a horrible encounter with street furniture on a wide road.



Stage 1 last September finished on an eight km, dead straight stretch of road, at least 4 lanes wide and there was a mass crash.
At the time, I recall the point being made that this type of finish can often be more dangerous.

tailwindhome

kingstongraham said:

They never let the break get much more than 2 minutes, so didn't need a concerted effort to reel them in. Catch was made with 7km to go.

This seems to be a recent phenomenon

Give them 10 mins, have your lunch and calm down a bit.

Pross

bobmcstuff said:

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.

The 3km rule only means you don't lose time if you have an issue. My understanding is that there was a suggestion the GC times are taken at 5km to go so the GC riders could then sit up whereas now they have to still keep their speed up to that of the bunch even if they eventually get swamped by the sprint teams (Carapaz yesterday being an example). If half the bunch no longer has to cross the finish line at the same time as the other half it would lead to more problems than it would solve.

RichN95.

blazing_saddles said:

I am not sure I agree with you there.
One race, two crashes: Tirreno Adriatico. Simon Carr had a horrible encounter with street furniture on a wide road.

There's huge amounts of road either side and no-one blocking his view. That's just a terrible rider error. He was given plenty of room to avoid his mistake, which is my point. Mistakes will never be eliminated, but riders need to be given room to make them.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

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

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

So the one crash that may have been down to the road layout was actually another incidence of rider error? The riders all look to have a decent amount of space there and no-one seemed to be forced into a change of line by the road width reducing.

Pross

mididoctors said:

What about a fixed time loss in last 10 k or so for some specific stages ... Say 20 secs IE no matter what happens on "this stage" if you are split from the majority bunch in the final you can only lose 20 secs or sum such

Would leave to carnage at the back with the lantern rouge contenders fighting for position to get dropped before the cut off point.

kingstongraham

I don't agree with that assessment. They are clearly slowing to turn and closing gaps with a road full of bikes. Haig looks like he was the first to touch a wheel in front, caused by alpecin moving left making whoever is just ahead of him to take all the space away.

kingstongraham

Nobody's fault specifically, just inevitable.