The arguments saying that it is down to the riders seem reminiscent of motor racing in the 1960s.
Last summer I watched the end of a pro race in the pyrenees. We starter to decend off the mountain just as a lot of the pro riders were riding down too. (team vans etc were down at the bottom of the hill)
They didnt like the fact we were over taking them so they started going quicker than us. Basically we all ended up going bonkers quick down, over taking cars etc. There wasnt one of them wanting to go slower just because its fun going quick !
That decent yesterday looked fun, you win some you loose some.
I would suggest that Op isnt made of the same stuff as a professional sports person, in fact did OP convert from golf to cycling? 😆
I don't see that the history of danger is a reason to say that no change is required.
What and take out any decent, or roundabout come to that!?!?!
Precisely, which is why the organisers should take it into account when deciding on the route.
So you want the TDF to be a Crit series and not take in any mountains ?
May as well just give the Yellow jersey to Sagan then 🙂
They didnt like the fact we were over taking them so they started going quicker than us. Basically we all ended up going bonkers quick down, over taking cars etc. There wasnt one of them wanting to go slower just because its fun going quick !
Cool story.
What and take out any decent, or roundabout come to that!?!?!
Yeah, that's what I said. 🙄
ransos - Member
Having an extra descent near the finish when the riders are knackered
they're not knackered
So you want the TDF to be a Crit series and not take in any mountains ?
Yeah, when I said "Having an extra descent near the finish when the riders are knackered and racing for position is different I think to descents earlier in the stage." what I meant was "take out all the mountains"
Any chance of quitting the stupid strawmen?
they're not knackered
Simon Yates disagrees with you.
Yeah, when I said "Having an extra descent near the finish when the riders are knackered and racing for position is different I think to descents earlier in the stage." what I meant was "take out all the mountains"Any chance of quitting the stupid strawmen?
You're not being clear though, so your answers are open to interpretation. So what do you actually want ? Them only to put decents early on in the ride ? Won't they just go faster then as they're fresher ? More mountain top stage finishes ? Which will mean less chance for someone like Uran to win it as he's never going to match the fast climbers when they're fully on it for the win, it also means that someone like Froome is more nailed on for the win in the Tour as he's going to just use the team Sky train to drag him to the win on the other stages that need a long flat finish.
They're supposed to be tired, it's supposed to be hard, it's supposed to be risky, it's a race, winning is about being better than everyone else. Sprinting is risky, downhill is risky, that's what makes it exciting !
The course designers did take into account the descent could be challenging which is why they moved the finish line further from the bottom than it was in the Douphene, to remove some of the need to go all out on the descent.
There are plenty of stupid crashes at the end of flat stages when the riders are knackered and racing for position.
If you really want to improve safety, get rid of the sprints as well the mountain descents.
You're not being clear though, so your answers are open to interpretation.
I was trying to have a nuanced discussion, and you chose to misrepresent my position by advancing an opinion that bore no relation to anything I said. If you were at all unclear then you could've asked for a clarification rather than create a strawman.
They're supposed to be tired, it's supposed to be hard, it's supposed to be risky, it's a race, winning is about being better than everyone else. Sprinting is risky, downhill is risky, that's what makes it exciting !
It's not "anything goes" because the organisers already take into account the riders' safety. The question is where that balance is, and for me, the extra descent, near the finish, on a road they knew would be slippery in the wet, didn't get that balance right.
I wonder if anyone has actually considered the number of deaths and serious injuries in UCI sanctioned races over the last 10 years. Previous posted mentioned the 3 deaths I was aware of, but I can think of a lot of other seriousus injuries, including that poor woman in the Giro Rosa last week.
I love professional cycling and have watched for 30 years, but since van Vleuten's crash at the Olympics I'm starting to struggle with the risk side of it - don't really want to see someone die on TV so tend to avoid the live coverage of some stages/races. What a wimp!
If you really want to improve safety, get rid of the sprints as well the mountain descents.
The response to the Sagan/ Cavendish incident showed that the organisers are trying to address safety in the sprint. Whether the punishment was correct is a separate discussion!
"Having an extra descent near the finish when the riders are knackered and racing for position is different I think to descents earlier in the stage."
The thing is it's decided partially by geography and partially by who is willing to pay for a finish. There are only so many HC climbs in France that are suitable for the race to pass through and not all of those responsible for the mountain top areas will be prepared to pay for the Tour to finish there.
So if you want a mountain top finish yesterday for example, you'd have to stop the stage at the Grand Colombier (assuming the road up and gravel carpark are suitable for the convoy of trucks etc). Then it comes down to whether there's anyone willing to stump up the cash for the area to have the race finish there. By this time, however, the stage is too short so the race would either have to start somewhere else (need a new start town) or finish somewhere else entirely (perhaps no mountain finish). It's a big set of compromises.
on a road they knew would be slippery in the wet, didn't get that balance right
All roads are slippery in the wet, but they couldn't predict the forecast for July 2017 when they planned it in 2016 ! They can't just not have stages in the mountains because it may rain. Hell, they may as well cancel the Giro along with all the Spring Classics if we're using "oh well if it rains it's going to be slippery" reasoning.
All roads are slippery in the wet, but they couldn't predict the forecast for July 2017 when they planned it in 2016 ! They can't just not have stages in the mountains because it may rain. Hell, they may as well cancel the Giro along with all the Spring Classics if we're using "oh well if it rains it's going to be slippery" reasoning.
They had new tarmac laid for the TdF, which is more slippery in the wet than a worn-in road surface - something noted by Chris Boardman. The road is also heavily shaded by trees, which made it worse - something the riders noted. These factors were known in advance and have nothing to do with the weather forecast, which again is not an argument I have made.
They had new tarmac laid for the TdF, which is more slippery in the wet than a worn-in road surface - something noted by Chris Boardman. The road is also heavily shaded by trees, which made it worse - something the riders noted. These factors were known in advance and have nothing to do with the weather forecast, which again is not an argument I have made.
I'm going to dip out now as i think you've lost the plot to be honest... i'm honestly lost as to what your actual point is, so you crack on...
The TdF isn't short of mountain top finishes.
It is this year 😆
There's a big difference between removing movable road furniture, putting out crash bales, and totally avoiding certain descents. So long as a route has been made as safe as possible then sureely it comes down to rider discretion as to the speed they wish to push it.
I expect the number of deaths in cycling is miniscule in comparison to something like motorsport. I think the accessibility and hype from the media are making some hyper-sensitive - if you took the same number of people simply going about their daily lives, there would still be a number of fatalities regardless e.g. the number of pedestrians killed by traffic - do we ban traffic? One of the joys of road cycling in the mountains is the pure exhilaration of descending and to go fast you need the psychological approach of a downhill skier, balanced on the edge of control.
I'm going to dip out now as i think you've lost the plot to be honest... i'm honestly lost as to what your actual point is, so you crack on...
I thought it was pretty obvious, but never mind.
It is this yearThere's a big difference between removing movable road furniture, putting out crash bales, and totally avoiding certain descents. So long as a route has been made as safe as possible then sureely it comes down to rider discretion as to the speed they wish to push it.
Porte slammed into a rock face, so straw bales would've helped, but I'm not sure it's practical to put safety features in for a whole road descent?
The issue I think is that pro riders take risks to win. They push their limits. When they do this on a climb they hit the wall, crack and go backwards. Worst case is they loose time. When they push too hard on a decent they crash and often end up in hospital. Its all about the risk's the rider is prepared to take.
The course designers did take into account the descent could be challenging which is why they moved the finish line further from the bottom than it was in the Douphene, to remove some of the need to go all out on the descent.
that has no effect/the opposite effect as you still have to gap any chasing group because they'll team up and chase you down on the flat as shown yesterday.
that has no effect/the opposite effect as you still have to gap any chasing group because they'll team up and chase you down on the flat as shown yesterday.
The opposite is also true, you don't need to close the gap/worry about one opening on the descent as you know you can close it on the flat.
they have "neutralized" descents in the past, IIRC was there the schleck brothers weren't happy about they all went down that very sedately.
[url= http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/tour-de-france/are-the-tour-de-frances-descents-too-risky-50000 ]moaning in 2011 [/url](the one where Voeckler ended up in someones drive) I think it may have been the next years race where it was "neutralized" as I remember it being wet.
I would suggest that Op isnt made of the same stuff as a professional sports person, in fact did OP convert from golf to cycling?
You do know that golf is a professional sport right?
Last summer I watched the end of a pro race in the pyrenees. We starter to decend off the mountain just as a lot of the pro riders were riding down too. (team vans etc were down at the bottom of the hill)They didnt like the fact we were over taking them so they started going quicker than us. Basically we all ended up going bonkers quick down, over taking cars etc. There wasnt one of them wanting to go slower just because its fun going quick !
Cool story indeed.. Although I'm willing to bet in reality your perception is far from the one of the racers who probably thought 'knobber' as they leisurely bimbled down the hill.
Besides.. This 'ex golfer' overtook none other than the great Tony Martin on the final decent of last years penultimate tour stage. (the organisers had opened the road before he'd finished due to a mechanical). And no.. He wasn't trying.. Not even remotely..
Has everyone forgotten stage 1?Pan flat road with only a couple of corners and no other riders around and Valverde still managed to wipe himself out of the tour with less than 10 Kms of riding under his belt.
Point is, riders are competitive and (some) will push the envelope irrespective of how dumbed down/easy the course is....
