2024 Pro thread

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team

User avatar
spokenwords
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:21 am

by spokenwords

the first stage at Dauphine looked fun as hell. Doing 100kmh down a wide, open, downhill road and nice run in to the finish.
Great win for Morton at Unbound. 2 off the front for a long while and still managed to be the fastest Unbound to date. Impressive.
"Notice how the door closes when the chimes of freedom ring." Joe Strummer
"this goes to 11" Nigel Tufnel
Dont move to Austin
Major Taylor rules.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



CrankAddictsRich
Posts: 2366
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 1:39 pm
Contact:

by CrankAddictsRich

Anyone else think the 3k rulke is messed up and doesn't accomplish what it was design to accomplish? The announcers always explain the 3K rule as if it was designed to remove the GC contenders from the sprint trains, but it doesn't really accomplish that.. It only protects them if there's a crash, not if there are any splits. They still have to continue to stay attached to the group and mix it up because if there are splits, they will lose time.

ichobi
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:30 pm

by ichobi

Kind of get your point but at least it removes a whole (or more) gc teams having to flood the front of the group all the way to the sprint moment.

Within 3km to go they can safely move to the middle or the back but still within the front group reducing the battle for position at the front (and the likely crashes) with the sprinter teams.

The point was never to have the GC time stops at the 3km line. You still have to go all the way through with the fastest group, but not to the point of elbowing your way into the sprint trains. I think it works fine and most GC teams seem to follow that rule in the grand tours.

User avatar
spokenwords
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:21 am

by spokenwords

The 3k started as 1k or 2k or something like that and they extended and agreed on 3. If i remember correctly some directors wanted like 5k. It was about the increased risk of crashes, the sprint teams conplaining about the GC guys causing crashes tryin to race for time, and GC riders complaining about getting stuck behind crashes the sprint teams caused. It was a significant debate for a bit. I think it makes a ton of sense. If a GC rider works in the sprint train then thats on them but they do have to put the effort in to stay attached. The organizers didnt want two different finish lines, basically.
"Notice how the door closes when the chimes of freedom ring." Joe Strummer
"this goes to 11" Nigel Tufnel
Dont move to Austin
Major Taylor rules.

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 3781
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

yes but the pont is - does it make it safer?

AFAIK this rule started out around SKY era, no? when Froome et co. started driving the peloton, and soon, pretty inevitably was joined by others. today it's getting clear the road's not wide enough for both GC and sprint teams. every sprint stage on a GT looks nightmar-ish, there's no order to anything, and even commentators are basically like "omg let there be no crash today"

do fans care how high on the peloton GC guys arrive on sprinting finishes? I don't think so. IMHO this rule should be tweaked a bit so we don't need to hold our breath wondering if GC guys are gonna be OK. or will their teams disturb those who actually race to win a stage. someone said it's a part of racing - but it's not. sprinters get generous time cuts on hilly stages, the same way GC riders should be allowed to take the final kms easy when the whole bunch hits the finale.
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

Karvalo
Posts: 3565
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:40 pm

by Karvalo

tymon_tm wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:46 pm
sprinters get generous time cuts on hilly stages, the same way GC riders should be allowed to take the final kms easy when the whole bunch hits the finale.
That's not the example you want. The time cut isn't doing sprinters a favour - it exists to make things more difficult for them. They have to race to make the cut on the toughest mountain stages when they would otherwise prefer to go easier.

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 3781
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

that's exactly the example i want - time cuts vary, they're narrower on easier stages, more generous on the hardest ones. im sure if they were bigger, many riders would ride even slower, but GT being a GT requires and kinda enforces some level of physical capabilities. i'm not here to argue whether these cuts are too big or too small, only that there's a solution for riders uninterested (and incapable) in GC, and so there should/could be one for riders not contesting sprints, which are both dangerous and require.certain skills they do not have. sounds fair to me, no?
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

Karvalo
Posts: 3565
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:40 pm

by Karvalo

tymon_tm wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2024 6:03 pm
that's exactly the example i want - time cuts vary, they're narrower on easier stages, more generous on the hardest ones. im sure if they were bigger, many riders would ride even slower, but GT being a GT requires and kinda enforces some level of physical capabilities. i'm not here to argue whether these cuts are too big or too small, only that there's a solution for riders uninterested (and incapable) in GC,
Right - the solution for riders uninterested in time is to make them ride harder by giving them an artificial time limit.

If you really want to pursue that logic, the fair thing to do would be to make GC riders uninterested in points have to finish above a certain placing on every flat stage. But that's the opposite of what you want to do, because the timecut analogy says the opposite of what you want it to say.

basilic
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by basilic

Or else, the GC teams might have a gentlemen's agreement to have their leaders sit up and not get involved in sprints, since it's in their joint best interest to protect them. Then who cares if there is a gap and sprinters who are 2 hours behind on GC gain 7 seconds.
A secondary regulation like the 3 km rule has side-effects. It's arbitrary - what if there is a crash at 3.1 km? It may encourage more dangerous behavior in the last 3 km, since a crash has fewer consequences. But mostly it's a bit non-sporting - on some stages a late crash will cost you, on others not.

MichaelK
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 4:50 pm
Location: London, UK

by MichaelK

So your GC leader can't lead out your sprinter?

maquisard
Posts: 3865
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: France

by maquisard

The emphasis should always be on good course design for safety, not using a special rule to try and make dangerous finishes more safe.

I think this is one thing that is fundamentally lacking in parcours design at the moment. Some sprint finishes simply aren't fit for purpose and hold too many hazards.

basilic
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by basilic

MichaelK wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:32 am
So your GC leader can't lead out your sprinter?
Sure they can. It just means there's no agreement. If a crash happens and the GC guy(s) lose(s) time so be it.

pastronef
Posts: 1652
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:33 am
Location: Asti, ITALIA

by pastronef

tymon_tm wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2024 1:46 pm
yes but the pont is - does it make it safer?

AFAIK this rule started out around SKY era, no? when Froome et co. started driving the peloton
the 3 km rule started in 2005

basilic
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

by basilic

maquisard wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:41 am
The emphasis should always be on good course design for safety, not using a special rule to try and make dangerous finishes more safe.
I agree with this. However we already have an ideally safe environment for bike races, with smoth surface, no furniture, perfectly banked curves, no sudden braking, etc. It's called a velodrome. Yet crashes happen all the time. Utlimately it's on the riders.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



BdaGhisallo
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

basilic wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:59 am
maquisard wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2024 9:41 am
The emphasis should always be on good course design for safety, not using a special rule to try and make dangerous finishes more safe.
I agree with this. However we already have an ideally safe environment for bike races, with smoth surface, no furniture, perfectly banked curves, no sudden braking, etc. It's called a velodrome. Yet crashes happen all the time. Utlimately it's on the riders.
Exactly. The Tour had one sprint stage finish on a race track last year. The roads were very wide with no road furniture, and very smooth tarmac.

It was the stage with the most carnage for the sprinters, of course.

Post Reply