Tyler's comments on race safety

In article <[email hidden]>, Darrell Criswell

Quoted message said:

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. -

"Mike Gladu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Darrell Criswell said:

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.

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mike Gladu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Darrell

Criswell

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

psycholist said:

Quoted message said:

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

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:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

psycholist said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, Tyler said the time for GC should be taken at
3k, which is

quite

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a different concept.

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

sprints.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think we should have a mystery finish. There should be
a red kite

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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,

Quoted message said:

a distance incommensurate with the true distance of the
final sprint,

given modern

Quoted message said:

leadout trains. 3km seems about right. It gives the
GC guys an

opportunity

Quoted message said:

to let up right when the trains need to be at the front.

Dan

In article <[email hidden]>,
d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g says...

Quoted message said:

Interesting idea....But the issue is the conflict between
the GC guys and the

sprinters.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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,

Quoted message said:

a distance incommensurate with the true distance of the
final sprint, given

modern

Quoted message said:

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

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g says...

Quoted message said:

Interesting idea....But the issue is the conflict between
the GC guys and

the

Quoted message said:

sprinters.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

teams to bring

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

than 1km,

Quoted message said:

a distance incommensurate with the true distance of the
final sprint,

given

Quoted message said:

modern

Quoted message said:

leadout trains. 3km seems about right. It gives the GC
guys an

opportunity

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

------------
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.