Yeah. That's a terrible idea.

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

The execution is terrible (points and climber contests reward the first person across the line, not the fastest time). The idea, however, is awesome. Descending is hardly more dangerous than sprinting.

It would only be terrible if it was a pack of triathletes descending.

---

***

I would say descending is less dangerous than sprinting. There is more margin for error and unexpected scenarios. You are generally not dependent on the stupidity of others even in a protour pack going down at 90 kph between switchbacks. The guys all pretty well get strung out in single file.

Just last Friday Chad Young died from injuries sustained while descending at the Tour of the Gila.

Also Wouter Weilandt from the old Trek-Leopard team died from a crash descending on stage 3 of the Giro.

I bet all their families would beg to differ.

Stupid idea.

Descents are already used as a place to attack and make time.

Better idea: timed segments on the first and/or second climbs of the day. Top 3 get time bonuses. Opens up all sorts of fun on otherwise dull multi-mountain stages.

I can be on board with this. Similar to intermediate sprint time or points bonus.

I can be on board with this. Similar to intermediate sprints for points or time.

Do they really want to encourage more deaths?

I think it is a bad idea.

How many pro cyclists have died sprinting vs descending? Probably zero or near to a handful plus that is too many.

And how exactly are you quantifying "dangerous" here?! Sure the probability of crashing in a bunch sprint might be higher than on a descent (although that's debatable seeing as descents are never contested in their own right en masse like this), but what's certain is that the consequences of crashing on a mountain descent are far, far greater.

I've seen someone go over the edge on the Col du Télégraphe and one thing I know for sure is that I'd rather take a dive on a flat bit of tarmac any day.

This would require the team cars relaying the results to the riders and setting up more timing would add great cost and complexity and require more commissaires.

Perhaps just small time bonuses at the top of every cat HC/1/2 climb.

But really... the best GT's I've watched are the ones with shorter punchier stages. Long epic stages may look awesome on paper but usually produce dull tactical racing.

You're crazy. Descending is far more dangerous, for a variety of reasons.

Maybe descending is more dangerous than sprinting in the same vein that flying an airplane is more dangerous than driving a car. The assumption is that the outcome is more catastrophic when there is failure. But do you think there are more failures per rider minute of desending than sprinting? I don't have the stats at hand. Seems like sprinting has a much higher probability of failure (rubber side up vs down). Now once you end up with rubber side up, I can see descending having a more lethal outcome, but that's only you crash. But what's the odd of crashing per minute descended. It seems dramatically lower than the 10 seconds sprinted in 10 stages per grand tour x 200 riders. If you add all the rider minutes of descending in a grand tour, crashes are really rare on a "rider minute" basis. But when they happen they look really bad like airplane crashes.

Crashes while descending don't just "look really bad." They are really bad

There is more kinetic energy, which increases with the square of speed. Sprints can approach 45MPH for a couple of seconds. Descents can top 60MPH for long stretches.

There are turns. (bike race sprints have a finishing straight).

There are things like trees and cliffs. In sprints there's generally just tarmac and other riders.

It's just more dangerous. No one here is confusing "more likely" and "more dangerous."

I believe to quantify danger, probability/likelihood factor into more safety equations?

I think we are on semantics. I think we can agree that the outcome of descending crashes is more dramatic/catastrophic.

But so is flying in an airplane versus driving a car. But driving a car is generally viewed at least by safety experts as being more dangerous than flying. Dangerous "seems" to incorporate all the probability and stats as far as understand...danger seems to be quantified as fatalities or injuries per driver mile. If we want to define danger as "how bad does it get", then OK no question, flying and descending would generally be worse than driving and sprinting respectively (like you said, the former there is more kinetic energy to dissipate and what you are bailing out is likely more extreme (no runway, no built up finishing chute). I still feel that descending is less dangerous than sprinting mainly because of incidences per rider minute is very low, not because of outcomes. Do the math and for all the rider descending minutes, there are very few crashes. it just "sounds" unsafe. I don't think the math would show it as being dangerous relative to sprinting.

We'd need to go to the Giro or Tour organizers and do a roll up. Probably you would have to use "crashes" in general keeping out degree of injury. To my best knowledge the only death in the TdF in 30 something years was Fabio Casertelli on the Col d'Aspin descent in 1994. I can't recall any sprinting deaths, so on that card, descending would appear to be more dangerous. But if we just roll up all crashes in each discipline, what would we see?

this.

my guess is that the bike racers here would all agree that descending is far more dangerous than sprinting, and i speak as someone who got some real titanium bling in my mouth due to crashing in a sprint.

funny how a few triathletes just shrugs off descending as if it were nothing (thankfully quite a few think this is a horrible idea).

Maybe we should just remind people just who wiped out on the descent during the Olympic Road Race. That's right, the dude who won the Giro because he didn't crash into a snowbank while descending. Even the most skillful (though Nibali's skills here is a bit overhyped) descenders can mess up; you don't want to encourage further risk taking.

Wikipedia actually has a list; and the most dangerous is actually track cycling (little space to go and very high maintained speeds)

Just to be clear, I have done my fair share of road racing and done pretty well all the technical descents in the Alps and many in the Dolomites and Pyranees and a few riding with pro riders at full pro cyclist speed, so it's not entirely like I have zero context (you can be an age group cyclists, yet an expert descender since this is not dependent on engine). But just because riders say something is more dangerous does not mean the probability and math suggest something totally different. It's like most people will say flying is more dangerous than backing out of the driveway to go to the grocery store. I saw Nibali crash at the Olympics and get it and I have also seen Abdoujaparov crash into that giant coke can on the Champs and seen that too.



Just show me the math where descending is more dangerous. Till then, we're just pulling opinions out of the air. Roughly there are barely 5-10 minutes in each Grand Tour that involve sprint riding and easily over 200 minutes of descending something steep or technical (let's say a fast Galibier South Side to Lauteret is around 10 min and a Croix de fer North Side caliber descent would be 25 minutes).

I don't think this category results in substantially more risky behavior than the risk taking (ex Froome on his downhill attack last year) by GC guys. Now you will just get some good descending non GC guys taking similar risks. Recall Paolo Salvodelli winning the 2005 Giro on the descent in Sestriere, "saving" his maglia rosa:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Savoldelli

Sounds like most of the descents happen early to mid stage. I'd assume you'll get a winner out of the break or a few guys from the main group that decide to go for it. I don't know that you'll see this competition force selections though it may make the fight for the break a bit harder in the morning. I think it'll be similar to the intermediary sprints where you'll see a split but the guys going for it will sit up at the bottom. Ultimately, the riders will have to decide how much risk they'd be willing to take. If it's too dangerous, these guys are smart enough to back off.

I think the idea is that it'll be taken off the timing chip on each rider's bike. But it might cause a guy who's otherwise pack fodder to take stupid risks bc he's sitting 3rd on points and ensconced in 183rd on GC.

And in recent years the Giro descents seem to have gotten much tighter and technical then the Tour descents. So overall seems like a very poor idea by the organizers.

If the CPA don't stop this, then they have no use.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

One only has to watch the Olympic Road Race and the 2011 TdF into Pinerolo to realize that they don't back off. They follow whomever they seek to mark, without much concern for the risk involved. No time for backing off during a race.


Giro climbs are steeper than those at the Tour, and what goes up usually has to come back down

I guess you didn't like the physics math of kinetic energy.

How about listing pro cyclists who've died on descents vs. those who've died during sprints.

I'll take the descents. Off the top of my head.

Chad Young (RIP)
Wouter Weylandt (at the Giro)
Fabio Casartelli (TdF)


OK sprint deaths, your turn.

Will they still do it, even if it is wet? It sounds irresponsible to me.
Sprinting might be more dangerous, but I can't remember anyone dying in a sprint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ycling_related_death

A quick looks shows that they are almost all medical incidents, traffic accidents or whilst decending.

This, this, and this again. No amount of sprint crashes, where guys either get up and walk/ride across the finish line or have otherwise minor non-career ending injuries, can make up for lives lost. Period.