Tyler's comments on race safety

[Darrell Criswel]

Tyler was on OLN explaining his discussions with race
officials. He feels the race finishes are too dangerous.

This year the finishes and the overall courses seem
incredibly dangerous. I thought a number of years ago the
decision had been made to not include cobbles in the tour,
but they are in quite a few stages this year and don't seem
to add but rather detract from the race.

Bob Roll said the safety of the race finishes haven't
changed in 100 years. Tyler suggested having a 3 km instead
of a one km where if you crashed you didn't lose time.

[Mike Gladu]

In article <7n24f0te61cn1uenk8ecdg550lqkicp48d@4ax.com>, Darrell Criswell
<dcriswel@satx.rr.com> wrote:

> Tyler was on OLN explaining his discussions with race
> officials. He feels the race finishes are too dangerous.
>
> This year the finishes and the overall courses seem
> incredibly dangerous. I thought a number of years ago the
> decision had been made to not include cobbles in the tour,
> but they are in quite a few stages this year and don't
> seem to add but rather detract from the race.
>
> Bob Roll said the safety of the race finishes haven't
> changed in 100 years. Tyler suggested having a 3 km
> instead of a one km where if you crashed you didn't
> lose time.

Actually, Tyler said the time for GC should be taken at 3k,
which is quite a different concept.

Mike G. -

[Psycholist]

"Mike Gladu" <myfirstname@velodrome.com> wrote in message
news:myfirstname-1107042328430001@10.0.1.2...
> In article <7n24f0te61cn1uenk8ecdg550lqkicp48d@4ax.com>,
> Darrell Criswell <dcriswel@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Tyler was on OLN explaining his discussions with race
> > officials. He feels the race finishes are too dangerous.
> >
> > This year the finishes and the overall courses seem
> > incredibly dangerous. I thought a number of years ago
> > the decision had been made to not include cobbles in the
> > tour, but they are in quite a few stages this year and
> > don't seem to add but rather detract from the race.
> >
> > Bob Roll said the safety of the race finishes haven't
> > changed in 100 years. Tyler suggested having a 3 km
> > instead of a one km where if you crashed you didn't
> > lose time.
>
> Actually, Tyler said the time for GC should be taken at
> 3k, which is quite a different concept.
>
> Mike G. -

I don't see how it's so different. That just means there'll
be 2 sprints.

I think we should have a mystery finish. There should be a
red kite that indicates the finish line could be anywhere
within the next 10 kms.

Bob C.

[Patrick Kavanag]

"psycholist" <technico@wctel.net> wrote in message
news:ccu049$atg9$1@news3.infoave.net...
>
> "Mike Gladu" <myfirstname@velodrome.com> wrote in message
> news:myfirstname-1107042328430001@10.0.1.2...
> > In article <7n24f0te61cn1uenk8ecdg550lqkicp48d@4ax.com>,
> > Darrell
Criswell
> > <dcriswel@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Tyler was on OLN explaining his discussions with race
> > > officials. He feels the race finishes are too
> > > dangerous.
> > >
> > > This year the finishes and the overall courses seem
> > > incredibly dangerous. I thought a number of years ago
> > > the decision had been made to not include cobbles in
> > > the tour, but they are in quite a few stages this year
> > > and don't seem to add but rather detract from the
> > > race.
> > >
> > > Bob Roll said the safety of the race finishes haven't
> > > changed in 100 years. Tyler suggested having a 3 km
> > > instead of a one km where if you crashed you didn't
> > > lose time.
> >
> > Actually, Tyler said the time for GC should be taken at
> > 3k, which is
quite
> > a different concept.
> >
> > Mike G. -
>
> I don't see how it's so different. That just means
> there'll be 2 sprints.
>
> I think we should have a mystery finish. There should be a
> red kite that indicates the finish line could be anywhere
> within the next 10 kms.
>
> Bob C.
>
> Its the Tour and it belongs to the French, if they want
> cobbles then its
there choice. If they want finishes where they want them
then thats what they do because its the Tour de France.
People don't like it then don't ride it

Pat K.

[Dan Connelly]

psycholist wrote:
>>Actually, Tyler said the time for GC should be taken at
>>3k, which is quite a different concept.
>>
> I don't see how it's so different. That just means
> there'll be 2 sprints.
>
> I think we should have a mystery finish. There should be a
> red kite that indicates the finish line could be anywhere
> within the next 10 kms.

Interesting idea....But the issue is the conflict between
the GC guys and the sprinters. That could be less with a
separate GC line.

But a more fundamental issue is a 3km GC line increases the
pressure on the GC teams to bring back breaks, as sprinters'
teams have an extra 3km to bring back breaks.

In the least, I think it is clear the crash zone should be
moved back more than 1km, a distance incommensurate with the
true distance of the final sprint, given modern leadout
trains. 3km seems about right. It gives the GC guys an
opportunity to let up right when the trains need to be at
the front.

Dan

[Chris]

None of you realize that perception is so important to ASO
and the UCI that they would never agree to change rules that
will confuse the fans more than they are already.

If the 1 km rule is changed it will be kept intact except to
move it to 3 km. If the riders pass the 3 km and then drop
off the pace before the line, they will still be given a
time differential. That is how it should be and always will
be. Remember also that if they fall after the red kite, they
only get the same time *IF* they were with that group when
they fell. It will be the same for 3 km. This way, nobody
has any incentive to "fall off" to gain time (that was lost
when they were dropped between the finish and the red kite).

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote in
message
news:qPzIc.9836$G72.6567@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
> psycholist wrote:
> >>Actually, Tyler said the time for GC should be taken at
> >>3k, which is
quite
> >>a different concept.
> >>
> > I don't see how it's so different. That just means
> > there'll be 2
sprints.
> >
> > I think we should have a mystery finish. There should be
> > a red kite
that
> > indicates the finish line could be anywhere within the
> > next 10 kms.
>
> Interesting idea....But the issue is the conflict between
> the GC guys and
the sprinters.
> That could be less with a separate GC line.
>
>
> But a more fundamental issue is a 3km GC line increases
> the pressure on
the GC teams to bring
> back breaks, as sprinters' teams have an extra 3km to
> bring back breaks.
>
> In the least, I think it is clear the crash zone should be
> moved back more
than 1km,
> a distance incommensurate with the true distance of the
> final sprint,
given modern
> leadout trains. 3km seems about right. It gives the
> GC guys an
opportunity
> to let up right when the trains need to be at the front.
>
> Dan

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <qPzIc.9836$G72.6567@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g says...
>Interesting idea....But the issue is the conflict between
>the GC guys and the
sprinters.
>That could be less with a separate GC line. But a more
>fundamental issue is a 3km GC line increases the pressure
>on the GC
teams to bring
>back breaks, as sprinters' teams have an extra 3km to bring
>back breaks. In the least, I think it is clear the crash
>zone should be moved back more
than 1km,
>a distance incommensurate with the true distance of the
>final sprint, given
modern
>leadout trains. 3km seems about right. It gives the GC guys
>an opportunity to let up right when the trains need to be
>at the front.

They probalby should vary the distance depending on the road
to the finish line. A straight shot to the finish on a nice
wide road should have a 1km rule. A twisting run on narrow
roads should have a 3km, or more, rule.
------------
Alex

[Tm]

"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:cculm7$5ij$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> In article
> <qPzIc.9836$G72.6567@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g says...
> >Interesting idea....But the issue is the conflict between
> >the GC guys and
the
> sprinters.
> >That could be less with a separate GC line. But a more
> >fundamental issue is a 3km GC line increases the
> >pressure on
the GC
> teams to bring
> >back breaks, as sprinters' teams have an extra 3km to
> >bring back breaks. In the least, I think it is clear the
> >crash zone should be moved back
more
> than 1km,
> >a distance incommensurate with the true distance of the
> >final sprint,
given
> modern
> >leadout trains. 3km seems about right. It gives the GC
> >guys an
opportunity
> >to let up right when the trains need to be at the front.
>
> They probalby should vary the distance depending on the
> road to the finish line. A straight shot to the finish on
> a nice wide road should have a 1km rule. A twisting run on
> narrow roads should have a 3km, or more,
rule.
> ------------
> Alex
>

How about taking an idea from American football.
Often, in practice, a qb wears a different colored
shirt to distinguish them and designate them as off
limits to hitting.

Because cycling has so many different colored jerseys,
perhaps the GC contenders could wear a special article of
clothing say.... a skirt. The gc contenders could then put
this skirt on at the beginning of each dangerous stage and
then their race would finish at the 3km banner and everyone
else could race the rest of the way to the finish...

Tyler could then start a crusade to straighten out the
corners in the Giro, because those seemed to be difficult
for him as well.

I think this whole thing is a simple case of one-ups-
manship. LA complains about the finish to the press, Tyler
has to take it directly to Leblanc in front of the cameras.
Once the mountains get here they'll be able to compete on
their bikes and all this will be forgotten.