Not a lot. If you drop 5km/h, or even 10km/h to flat speed, it doesn't make anything safer. You'll still have DSs shouting in riders ears, you'll still see significant incidents on mountain descents, where we still see the worst injuries or even worse (RiP Gino Mader). Riding a bike fast, in a larger bunch, would remain pretty sketchy on modern roads. The stakes are so high, a slight drop in pace isn't doing much. Plus of course, if you had smaller gears, riders will work on a higher cadence, to compensate. Trackies can hit high cadences already, you'd soon see that being worked on with roadies.
I think it would make a bigger difference to limit the rims profiles, to max 20-30mm for example. Limiting the gears would give you scenes in sprints with cyclists going at ridiculously high cadences.
Perhaps the best thing is to devise a points system where descents are awarded said points to determine how much gears should be restricted. You don't get in the way of sprinters in flatter races then, but you might be able to avoid deaths like Gino Mäder up in the mountains, and reduce the risk in hilly stages and some of the classics/monuments at least somewhat.
Total rubbish, top speed moderated? No, sounds way too much like the formula E, garbage. None of the fatal crashes have been in final sprints, it's the descents that need proper plastic netting, pads.
It wont change much. Its the pressure of achieving results or getting cut / loosing your job. And the more sponsorship money is in there the more risk people will take. Ironically this increases viewership and the money spent on cycling. Maybe a better contract system / a salary cap or something in this regard has to change. Somehow there needs to be a way reduce the incentives for doing these dangerous things. Riders wont gamble their lives like this if the potential rewards would be less. (This is all on the rides side, of course organisers have a major part to play. The good old vuelta speedbump in a sprint final or a finish line after a decent are good examples.
Dan, I guess you nailed it by saying racing is getting faster and faster on roads that are made to make you go slower. I would love to see a in-depth video about this talking to riders, teams, road planers and so on.
To improve safety: Better route planning like no downhill finishes, less technical finishes with less road furniture and sharp turns. Race organisers must ensure better padding on highest risk/speed corners and better tracking of riders on course (on body Spot tracker?).
Slowing it down IMO will make it unenjoyable to watch. You have some better ideas - some courses are so badly set out. Eg road barriers where roads split have no flag so riders mid pack can’t see it coming. Stupid stuff.
We need data on crashes. What are the factors, where are they occurring? I would bet most wrecks are happening due to traffic furniture. The roads are increasingly dangerous. Race organizers could avoid a lot of this by bypassing small towns, going around them rather than thru them. Or have the races end at the outskirts of towns. I understand why organizers wouldn't like this because they want to travel thru towns to get more people along the race routes. However, in light of rider safety, can we not make simple adjustments? Crashes due to winding descents are going to occur, and I wouldn't eliminate them. Perhaps going with wider tires as a minimum of say 35 mm?
Vouts proposal makes sense. He knows what he is talking about in contrast with the authors of many comments. What is more, reducing maximal speed in a bunch from 73 to 68 km/h reduces the kinetic energy by 15 per cent and, therefore, also statistically will reduce the injuries in eventual crashes.
@@Paksusuoli95 I would not ask them to design it, but I would very much would like to have their inputs to use on the design. User inputs are a valuable resource for engineering.
Radio ban. All the riders are constantly shouted at to get to the front and the nervosity in the peloton gets needlesly too high which leads to mistakes and crashes. Let them race with their own heads, not like marionettes of directeurs sportif.
But without radios there would be more inclination for team cars to be in the mix to facilitate messages to riders. I can't see that being a good thing.
Always considered this the way, makes for more exciting racing as well when the road captain has to try and know whats going on and there is likelihood of an interesting break developing without DS having a TV and knowing who is ahead and exactly how hard they need to ride to bring them back.
Thanks to radios riders can notify others when a rider flys off the course into a ravine managers can inform riders of potential hazards that develop ahead on the course. If the UCI was more concerned about course prep and safety than sock heights most of the injuries could be avoided.
@@gcnracing I think one of the problems is that a lot of Pros train on their own and have lost the art of riding in a big peloton, also not thinking about race tactics but waiting for the DS to give them instructions. There will always be crashes due to fatigue and mechanical failures. Public roads are not specially built race tracks.
Gear ratio limitations would definitely lead to training for increased cadence in the sprint, which seems much more chaotic in a bunch finish than bigger gearing. If anything, regulations should focus on safe layouts and hardware for the finish.
They have tried slowed the peloton down, they allow too many press motorbikes into the peloton. They seem to stop the speed of certain riders at the most inappropriate times all the time.
That's the easiest solution! Bring back the 13 or 14 tooth final position cogs on the cassetts and make jumps between gears even closer. It worked in Mercxx's era, and nobody would complain about faster climbing than back then. Simple.
I can't think how restricting gears is going to either reduce accidents, nor reduce their effect. The difference in speed is too small and it isn't speed in itself that is the issue at all. Almost all of them are down to rider error, overlapping wheels, fast decents (which isn't gear bound), poor road conditions a little bit, or just being too crowded as everyone wants to be in the same place.
Random suggestions for slowing the peloton: - Go back to shallow wheels with 32 spokes? Wheel manufacturers wouldn't enjoy it... - Make helmets less aero? (perhaps not impactful enough) - Change how radios are setup so that every rider in the peloton doesn't get told to get to the front for the upcoming corner? (e.g. One way radios, one radio per team etc.)
I don't think max gearing restriction will help. That will only get even more people battling at the front of the peleton since the strongest won't be able to ride away from the slightly less strong. Also, it will not reduce the speed going downhill much either. I don't think there is any one solution to this and the problem will not disappear regardless of what is done, it will still be humans riding the bikes. ;)
A very simple solution that will serve two purposes - 1) safety by slowing down the peloton and 2) make the sport more equitable and more open. Racing bikes (in all categories) almost require full aero frames plus expensive wheels. A top aero set-up (wheels/frame) can make a significant difference over 40kph. When I was racing (in the 2000's) many still raced on box aluminum wheels with regular carbon bikes. My elite (senior 1/2 team in Canada) rode on bikes that were under $2,000. And, they were very similar to the bikes that you saw at the Tour (in terms of pace). You saw Mavic Ksyrium's (aluminum regular profile) under many riders. Now, riders ALL have super aero frames and aero rims, that would cost well north of $5,000 per bike.
Sprinting on small gears is a nightmare and more dangerous because the group bunches up... L'abitibi's downhill sprint on junior gears was a nightmare lol
He’s not wrong. I say, go ahead and get drastic on the gearing: Mercx and his contemporaries were able to climb Mont Ventoux and sprint as fast as necessary with five or six speed freewheels and (I believe) a 53/39 front ring combo. Limit the gearing to that maximum (2x5 or 2x6) and maybe that will slow things down enough to improve safety.
Two quickies I'd recommend are larger tires, maybe those new Parelli 40s, and no computers so no distracting screens at speed. And body armor, of course. And after last year's hype for the Big Four in the Tour came to a halt because of one terrible crash, I am no longer anticipating anything other than the races themselves. One fall, major or rinky-dink, can end a rider's season or worse and it is all most unfortunate for them and the sport. And as a fan, I'm hopeful for better for each and every one of them. Racing life should be the start of a accomplished life, nothing less. And thanks, Dan and GCN Racing, for all your coverage as this new season is about to begin, woohoo.
90% of deaths and major injuries come from downhill racing on narrow icy oiled and extremely wet road. Change this! Reduce peloton size by using wider roads in towns less islands and road furniture and within 5k of end of race
You can fix things here and there, but the nature of the sport is the primary reason behind most crashes. If anything, it's surprising to me that there's not more crashes, given how closely knit a peloton is at such speeds and adrenaline levels. It's almost like saying, "oh let's have a street fight tournament, but we need to make sure every participant is uninjured"
I like the idea about the gearing. And also there have to be Zone's when going downhill where you have to break to a real slow speed. Maybe going throw something left, right, left like in rally racing stages.
Seems sensible. 53x11 is fine. We need to avoid riders attacking on fast downhills. They don’t want to - generally - but they’re under pressure to do so.
I appreciate that gear restrictions are widely unpopular and asking racers to go slower feels unnatural. So you see most people turning to other things like Road furniture and want to ignore speed as key part in the formula for safer races. Question, do we think accidents like Gino’s would have happened if the speed was 15-20% lower?
In Formula 1 racing, the drivers forced the governing body to change the cars and race courses because of lack of safety and drivers dying during races and practice sessions and as result the sport is much safer today. I think the riders MUST take the stand against the UCI to make the sport safer, for example the courses need to be safer of which there is obvious change that could be made for safety of the riders (narrowing the course at the finish for a sprint finish, just one obvious example) rules need to be changed for the safety of riders being the PRIORITY making the sport respect the riders not ignoring the dangers. No one should DIE in a bicycle race!!! Completely inexcusable!!!
They should legislated tires - tire width and tread to guarantee a certain level of traction. The increased friction would slow the peleton down (a bit), decrease the likelihood of skids, and allow the riders to respond better to emergencies.
Guess you gotta do something, the real solution is just use bikes that handle well at those speeds but the peloton isn't gonna go back to steel/rim so slowing the bikes down another way makes sense. Maybe there will be a way to make disc mounts put pressure on both sides of the spokes and wheel in the future so the bikes don't get blasted to one side in heavy downhill braking.
Please give us an update on the investigation of Muriel Furher. She was a cyclist who believed in the sport she loved. If the UCI wont give us updates on the death of one of their own, we need be informed about whats been found. So hard to find information.
Mandating wider tires would increase rider control. It wouldnt be enough by itself, but it would be a step in the right direction. Let say a minimum of 40mm. If that costs everyone 2-3w then thats just a bonus.
There will always be riders capable of descending faster than others. That won't change if you ban certain gear ratios, you'll just change when and where they'll take risks to gain positions. They'll brake latter and corner faster instead of overtaking in the relatively safer, straighter segments of a descent. To my mind, this won't make the sport any safer, in fact it'll make it much more dangerous. If I wanted to slow the sport down to make descending safer, I'd be more inclined to focus on when and where the greats risk of crashing occurs. It's not on the straight fast bits of a descent, it's in the braking zones and corners. I think a better solution would be to get rid of disk brakes and wider, low pressure tyres (anything over 28-30mm on a road stage) that encourage later and harder braking on approach, entry and cornering. It may seem counter intuitive but increasing braking zones and the distance it takes to scrub off speed encourages a more cautious approach, necessitating earlier, more gradual braking than the late banzai braking synonymous with disk brakes and wide contact patches. In short, disk brakes encourage higher corner approach speeds and later braking. Rim brakes don't. The latter is safer, but it will always be a dangerous sport as long as it's raced on public roads.
It is worth trying out I think, no harm in that, maybe for a stage race. I'm biased though, I want a junior cassette for 12 speed haha. Otherwise (and probably either way, I am sticking with my 11 speed 14-28 cassette on my tri bike. It puts my mortal ideal cadence in the center of the block.
I'm all for safety, and glad to see Wout back. But slowing riders down, I say "good luck". The basic concept of racing is the faster racer wins. And I don't think slowing the riders down is the immediate answer. There are other things that could be done to make road racing safer. For instance, using barricades where there is a curbed island that splits the Peloton left or right. Or constraining fans at the top of climbs, so they aren't able to jump in front of the racers, or take them out by sticking cardboard signs in front of them. Just a thought.🤔
As far as i can remember, there has always been crashes in road biking. 180 riders riding shoulder to shoulder up and down mountain winding roads is just a dangerous sport. I guess they could improve the road surface. I do think that the barriers that are used to fence the roads in seem to be a hazard on itself. I want to imagine there could be a better designed barrier that wouldnt rip your flesh apart if you happened to crash into it.
On flatter roads, gearing could help slow riders down and might reduce crashes. However, on descents, where riders can reach speeds over 100 km/h due to gravity and their aerodynamic position, gearing doesn't make much of a difference. Tragically, we have lost some great professional cyclists on descents, such as Gino Mäder in 2023, Wouter Weylandt, and Fabio Casartelli. Would gearing have changed their outcomes or slowed them down?
The point is the ability to not be spun out at high speeds on descents, not the absolute speed they are reaching. Large chainrings allow big gear ratios and the ability to continue pedaling and accelerating on a fast descent. That’s the problem. Not the descent or speed itself.
@silly since you can't understand my post without some help, to me this proves that WvA proposition would be effective in limiting maximum speeds. And maybe also favorise him, as a big heavy guy...
@@DR_1_1 and to your point, if a rider chooses to be heavier to gain an advantage on descending, then they will pay for that in terms of the watts it takes to climb. There’s always been physiological differences between riders. No changes there from status quo. There’s no basis in @silly’s weight argument
I agree with the many comments on road furniture. However, i dont see how that will change for a 1 day event like a Tour stage passing through town. Van Aerts suggestion seems like something concrete. Would be interesting to see what alrernatives pop-up in the months to come
Thanks for all the news, Dan. Entertaining as always! Just sad, that I won‘t be able to catch all the live action from Switzerland where I live as both Discovery+ and Max are not available. 😢 Any alternatives?
I would love a training 14-40 training cassette that allows me to have lower gear to stay in zone 2 on steep climbs. I don't really care to pedal over 50km/h. But for racing, I still like to have bigger gears like 11-34.
I'd say that street furniture is increasingly dangerous, installed at the whim of local councils. Here in the UK, as well as speed humps we have kerb extensions into the road for no apparent reason (surely the most dangerous of all). Any rider ploughing into one of these would at the least be seriously injured. Why not make it a requisite that if a town wishes to say, host a TdeF stage finish, then street furniture is removed and the course made safe?
It may be the case of no single change, but lots of incremental changes. Uphill sprint finishes, bypassing bottlenecks inside cities, reduction of riders on a team. Oddly, more races avialable on the same day could improve safety by forcing teams to choose which race to do.
UCI could enforce a mandatory minimum bike weight of 30 pounds or 13.61 kilograms. Try riding a road bike FAST that weighs 30 lbs! Or, even heavier. Bring back rim brakes. Enforce a mandatory number of pull-ups and push-ups during the race. There are many options to increase safety but no one wants to be forced to ride slower.
Keirin racers use uniform bikes. It highlights cyclists' power and skill. Geear uniformity would permit the bike makers to continue getting exposure and allow the cyclist to demonstrate their power, skill, and fitness while slowing down the peloton. Gearing constraints could be done with an eye toward the course and its dangers. Multiday events could have day-specific gearing.
Slowing the bikes down reminds me of the problem they had in the Javelin competition in the Olympics. The distances the javelin was being thrown was too far making it dangerous for competitors on the track. So they changed the balance on the javelin cutting the distance by 30%. For bikes I imagine it would be down to increasing the weight and returning to steel frames.
The javelin was flying out of the field and was endangering other athletes so redesigning it kept it with the field and solved the issue. But with cycling even with slightly slower speeds crashes will still happen. That way people will keep getting injured and passing away on occasions.
I don't think that using steel frames would make a difference. Riders were able to reach and sustain 30mph+ before the era of carbon bikes. I remember reading that with the advent of Reynolds 753 tubing, the TI-Raleigh team of the 1970s-80s era managed to get the weight of a racing bike down to 17 1/2 lbs (7.9 kilos). That's well within carbon territory.
If you changed the gearing for everyone,then it would still be the same results. Like people have said less traffic islands and tight bends ,plus wider roads at the finish might help . But your always going to get accidents,it's just the mature of the sport
When it comes to safety improvements I don't think just random guesses are the way to go. If you look at how the British government react to a major catastrophe they hold a public enquiry looking into all the different aspects of major catastrophe, looking into what went right and what went wrong, followed by making a series of recommendations that the government can ignore ready for the next time the same thing happens again. I think in order to look at safety in cycling we need to have a similar process where factors like the response times of ambulances, the amount of first aid training people have is examined, through to what actually killed the cyclist, where it was a curb to the head or falling off a cliff, these things have different solutions. Also did all the equipment work as it is suppose to, whether it's helmets tires, crash barriers, whatever. If someone dies on a alpine decent then the solutions to that will be very different to if they die in a crash in a sprint finish. If you want to slow the bikes down then you need an aerodynamic rule change considering that aerodynamics is the main reason modern bikes are going faster.
If we talk about racing in general, we can look at what they did in North America with NASCAR. When they had an increase in accident, they slowed the cars down which resulted in more competitive racing. Much more exciting for the fans. So perhaps slowing the bikes down would do the same. One idea perhaps is to increase the minimum weight of the bikes. In other words, make them heavier. Instead of making the minimum weight 6.8 kg how about making it 7.5 kg.
The safest thing to do would be to have a minimum tire width. Riders would have much more grip and yet can pedal as hard as they want. Of course then the industry has to build more road bikes with bigger tire spacing (which they already do more). It would have much more impact for the hobbyists like you and me, who could appreciate the extra comfort and safety. Give the industry a set date to adapt : Lets say from 2026 onwards its mandatory to have min 40 mm tires. It would take nootthing away from racing. Only thing is: maybe some pros might start riding faster around corners, bc they have more grip which contradicts the argument of safety a little bit. Still, they would be a bit slower, bad roads would be less of a problem, tire innovation for fast rolling wide tires would flourish... Aaaalso: maybe increase the minimum bike weight from 6.8 to 8 to have more durable products for us consumers?
The increase in crashes come from compact bunches of riders going fast, doesn't have anything to do with tire grip. Min wider tires would mean riders take more risks on descents. Most riders are on 28mm anyways.
Why not go on Dutch bikes then? Or increase the minimum weight to 15 kg? Or less aero bikes? The reason why wider tires are necessary in the first place is too much braking power and overly stiff frames from disc brakes. Go back to rim brakes and the constant crashes due to overbraking will stop, the speed on descents will slow, and so will the crashes. The available data is pretty clear, even though admittedly not conclusive. Injuries in the pro peloton pretty much doubled since around 2020, which is when disc brakes were adopted by most riders. The industry has since tried to make road bikes safer by turning them into gravel bikes...
SAFETY and SLOWING DOWN. Make all races UNSUPPORTED without radios. That will slow things down. Rider will have to think instead of pedalling like a crazy race horse.
Restricted gears is dumb. How many crashes are related to spinning out the max gear? Compare with most restricted gearing of single speed crits and they have plenty of crashes. UCI should be analyzing every crash and listing causes, then start working on the top causes of crashes. Right now, no one even knows what is the biggest cause of crashes
This, empirically, from watching lots of races, most crashes are from debris, wet patches, bad pavement, road furniture, touching wheels on sprints, etc, not that many crashes on top speed descents where you need highest gears.
How about some protection on dangerous corners on high speed descents? Air fences, hay bales, etc. Or, like in the Isle of Man TT, just acknowledge the danger and accept that racers are going to die occasionally.
Juniors used to be limited to 13s I believe. I believe it was dropped 4 or 5 yrs ago. (I run one of the 10 spd 13-28 Jr cassettes on my trainer to get the close ratios)
Max gear for juniors when I raced in the 80s was 53x15. I suppose it crept up over the years. 53x13 (13--21) would have been a typical top gear for seniors. With a 6 speed rear end, you really had to pick your gears carefully.
There is more than 10 km/h speed @ 120 rpm between 53/11( 72 km/h) and 55/10 (83 km/h). 10 km/h in a peloton descent can make the différence concerning safety. Look at the carshes of Van Aert in Belgium and Vingegaard/ Evenepoel in Spain : Crashes at very high speeds in peloton. During many years 53/11 was the biggest ratio, remember!!!
None of those crashes where pedaling at top speed due to gearing. Did you watch the videos? Vingegaard was coasting down a descent and crashed because of bad road surface before the corner, wout was due to contact in the peloton, they where in a long straight.
@@DittersGustav Of course at such speeds you are coasting, but the larger the gears, the more easily you reach such speeds! The speeds in the pelotons are getting higher and higher, no one can say the opposite, Van Aert's proposal to limit the gear ratios is going in the right direction.
e=mv^2 - 5% slower is 10% less energy. Mountain bikers wear lightweight armor these days. (The hand position and bum-below saddle rules aren't based on data, may actually encourage more dangerous positions)
53 x 12 max gear, 32mm minimum tire width, 35mm max rim depth, 38cm minimum handlebar width, no road furniture in the last 25k, UCI points only for the top 3 places, and mountain stages finish on the summit instead of down the other side.
Honestly you could go even bigger for the tire width requirement as 32mm tires are just as fast as 28 and 30mm and only provide modest grip gains. Once you get over 35mm that’s when the speeds start to decline and the grip increases would be enough to meaningfully increase safety on descents.
@@Thaddeus_Howe I generally agree, and vaciliated on 32 or 35 in my post, but I don't think a lot of current racing bikes have clearance for 35s. It could even be 40mm eventually, though I think tire manufacturers will soon figure out they could use lighter casing in 40's, because of the lower pressure, and 40's might become faster than 35's. 2.2 inch mtb tires are often faster than 45 mm gravel tires for this reason.
Juveniles were restricted because big gears damage young legs! I did bike checks years ago at Eastway to enforce the rules. Restricting top gears for elites on safety grounds doesn't seem so odd to me.
Curbing a 54 + rings would pull back from the outright power that they offer, yes a 53 is big BUT it's not a 54 and they're serious sizes for a chainring! I used to race a 53 and could out-power riders on 52 easily on some situations... it's a no-brainer
I don't think targeting small races for UCI points is a problem. This is exactly what the point system is supposed to encourage so teams aren't skipping the small races
Look at urban DH mountain biking then talk again what's dangerous. Those riders would die easily too if they would crash but they just ride with sense and that's why we don't hear about much fatalities from DH. What we need is crash detectors and paying attention from the race organisers. That way Muriel Furrer's life could have been saved. I would imagine a world class organisation like the UCI to make racing safer with tools that don't take away from the excitement and once they exhausted all those options they might use tools that take slightly away from the excitement. But by the looks of it they perhaps works the other way around: Making racing safer with tools that take away all the excitement and once that's been exhausted then making it safer with tools that actually make sense.
This is subjective..the UCI does implement rulings and obviously the buck stops wither and their decisions. Obviously this should be looked at. However this IS the world of TOP TIER professional cycle racing. It gains its support from the spectators who in turn buy products etc..and this in turn attracts sponsors. At the same time the combination of this is that the sport at this level (and indeed the tiers below World Tour) needs to be attractive and in that I mean EXCITING. I remember even this channel saying that riders had got faster..surely that's a great thing in this sport. Where I am actually going is that this IS professional cycling we are talking about with riders at the very PINNACLE of their game and to be frank..if they are too worried about the speeds etc..then perhaps it's not the sport for them. Just to caveat this..remember when they added cobbles in the TdF a few years back..? Cancerlla amongst others was an advocate for striking..reason..too dangerous..HOWEVER..Happy to race it on the Spring Classics..yes and I know some will say "but this is on a major tour and has no place in it" well I beg to differ... One thing that could slow the big races down..make them longer...remember the early Tour de France was WAY longer (as were the Stages)...
You want SAFER? Get rid of flat Sprint stages altogether. But if "safety" doesn't matter THAT much - then make them do the entire stage on single speeds...even a heavy Netherlands "Swapfiets" / Chinese "Flying Pigeon" type bike.
I would like a show about cyclist injuries, in particular calf/foot numbness and cramping. Surely the pros experience this more than us. What do the pros do to alleviate this?
No changes other than massive warnings for roundabouts and road furniture and plenty of protection around dangerous corners on descents. Bike racing is inherently dangerous. It’s part of the sport and the intense competition. “The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat “
If I wanted to slow them down, I'd suggest the following: Minimum tyre width 32mm measured, maximum wheel depth of 40mm and increasing the minimum weight up to 7.3kg along with restricted gearing. This would not only bring the speeds down, but quite effectively blunt the arms tech race. Manufacturers are free to build non UCI legal bikes and do so anyway so they can still sell 6kg superbike flagships.
The problem of making cycling safer is MASSIVE. In my opinion making the gears more LOW would not work. They need to TAPER the side of the roads so that cycling's reputation doesnt FADE away
My idea for making sprints safer is to draw lanes in the last 500 meters (maybe further) of the stage. Car lanes aren’t narrow enough to be a good proxy. I think the sprinters are going so fast helping to guide them in a straight line to the finish could help keep riders from crossing wheels. If a rider comes out of his/her lane, then they could be disqualified.
Safety ... helmets, gloves, suits, ... sugestions like use streets wide, no speed bumps, no corners and counter corners , ... I mean improve the tech For safety and improve the planning by really using the common sense by not putting any risk on the racers... if you see track cycling has cover all this ... could be translate into the streets ... safety! is there grab it.
3:55 where’s the case study that speed restriction would improve rider safety? It’s gotta be equal parts rider decision making, road conditions, weather. Surely the bike is such a small component of the overall issue.
restricting gearing won't change anything - they can and will still bomb down hills without pedaling at 80kmh+ and usually crash because of broken roads / road furniture or loosing grip in corners. Only thing I can imagine, which would really increase safety is something like the wearable airbag which inflates in case of a crash to protect their head and neck
I would definitely be in favour of riders having to wear those inflatable things on stages with big descents. Riders might complain about the aero losses or discomfort, but if everyone wears the same then it shouldn't make a lick of difference to the results.
Make the bikes heavier to slow things down for the professionals and make the races safer. The MLB uses heavy wooden bats compared to lighter metal bats for youth and collegiate levels. One reason for this is player safety.
I'm always amazed by organizations way of trying to solve an issue by restricting the equipment... Gear ratio can not solve the problems, see the youth raceing... There is simple solution, may not be the most popular one, reduce the number of riders per team, tactics would have to change, less people to work for the main rider... Which shouldn't be much of the problem as it would allow better exposure of the teams and riders in more races
What do you think of Wout van Aert's suggestion? 🤔 And what do you think its impact would be? ⚙
Not a lot. If you drop 5km/h, or even 10km/h to flat speed, it doesn't make anything safer. You'll still have DSs shouting in riders ears, you'll still see significant incidents on mountain descents, where we still see the worst injuries or even worse (RiP Gino Mader). Riding a bike fast, in a larger bunch, would remain pretty sketchy on modern roads. The stakes are so high, a slight drop in pace isn't doing much. Plus of course, if you had smaller gears, riders will work on a higher cadence, to compensate. Trackies can hit high cadences already, you'd soon see that being worked on with roadies.
I think it would make a bigger difference to limit the rims profiles, to max 20-30mm for example. Limiting the gears would give you scenes in sprints with cyclists going at ridiculously high cadences.
Perhaps the best thing is to devise a points system where descents are awarded said points to determine how much gears should be restricted. You don't get in the way of sprinters in flatter races then, but you might be able to avoid deaths like Gino Mäder up in the mountains, and reduce the risk in hilly stages and some of the classics/monuments at least somewhat.
Total rubbish, top speed moderated? No, sounds way too much like the formula E, garbage. None of the fatal crashes have been in final sprints, it's the descents that need proper plastic netting, pads.
It wont change much. Its the pressure of achieving results or getting cut / loosing your job. And the more sponsorship money is in there the more risk people will take. Ironically this increases viewership and the money spent on cycling. Maybe a better contract system / a salary cap or something in this regard has to change. Somehow there needs to be a way reduce the incentives for doing these dangerous things. Riders wont gamble their lives like this if the potential rewards would be less. (This is all on the rides side, of course organisers have a major part to play. The good old vuelta speedbump in a sprint final or a finish line after a decent are good examples.
Dan, I guess you nailed it by saying racing is getting faster and faster on roads that are made to make you go slower. I would love to see a in-depth video about this talking to riders, teams, road planers and so on.
Yeah. We are not the audience to discuss this. This is up to the pros and teams itself since they should be the best guys and women to judge this idea
To improve safety: Better route planning like no downhill finishes, less technical finishes with less road furniture and sharp turns. Race organisers must ensure better padding on highest risk/speed corners and better tracking of riders on course (on body Spot tracker?).
Slowing it down IMO will make it unenjoyable to watch. You have some better ideas - some courses are so badly set out. Eg road barriers where roads split have no flag so riders mid pack can’t see it coming. Stupid stuff.
Most of the worst crashes happen in relatively harmless areas because one rider serves slightly
@@MattGrovesFTW I don't think those crashes can be avoided. At least get rid of factors that can be controlled.
@ You’re thoughts are stupid though. Unless you want to host every race in Kansas.
loved seeing Wout trying to hug his crew after winning Superprestige Gullegem lol he was soooo muddy!
We need data on crashes. What are the factors, where are they occurring? I would bet most wrecks are happening due to traffic furniture. The roads are increasingly dangerous. Race organizers could avoid a lot of this by bypassing small towns, going around them rather than thru them. Or have the races end at the outskirts of towns. I understand why organizers wouldn't like this because they want to travel thru towns to get more people along the race routes. However, in light of rider safety, can we not make simple adjustments?
Crashes due to winding descents are going to occur, and I wouldn't eliminate them. Perhaps going with wider tires as a minimum of say 35 mm?
Vouts proposal makes sense. He knows what he is talking about in contrast with the authors of many comments. What is more, reducing maximal speed in a bunch from 73 to 68 km/h reduces the kinetic energy by 15 per cent and, therefore, also statistically will reduce the injuries in eventual crashes.
boring!!!!!!
Yes, all the experts know injuries only happen because the kinetic energy is 15% too high, going 68km/h directly into a barrier feels great
@@tjtennisicmroll2k 5 kmh difference is no joke when going downhill, control on the bike is quite different
Wout knows about racing, not event planning and safety. Would you ask Verstappen or Vettel to engineer a barrier on an F1 track? No.
@@Paksusuoli95 I would not ask them to design it, but I would very much would like to have their inputs to use on the design. User inputs are a valuable resource for engineering.
Radio ban. All the riders are constantly shouted at to get to the front and the nervosity in the peloton gets needlesly too high which leads to mistakes and crashes. Let them race with their own heads, not like marionettes of directeurs sportif.
But without radios there would be more inclination for team cars to be in the mix to facilitate messages to riders. I can't see that being a good thing.
@@rangersmith4652Didn’t seem to be an issue before radios.
Always considered this the way, makes for more exciting racing as well when the road captain has to try and know whats going on and there is likelihood of an interesting break developing without DS having a TV and knowing who is ahead and exactly how hard they need to ride to bring them back.
@@marcpost4034 Jesper Skibby would disagree :-)
Thanks to radios riders can notify others when a rider flys off the course into a ravine managers can inform riders of potential hazards that develop ahead on the course. If the UCI was more concerned about course prep and safety than sock heights most of the injuries could be avoided.
A big danger is road furniture.
we agree, there is an increasingly high amount these days when roads are being built
@@gcnracing I think one of the problems is that a lot of Pros train on their own and have lost the art of riding in a big peloton, also not thinking about race tactics but waiting for the DS to give them instructions. There will always be crashes due to fatigue and mechanical failures.
Public roads are not specially built race tracks.
And Jasoer Philipsen. In fact, that team seems to have a win at any cost vibe.
Agreed. Moreover, road furniture doesn't move, which cannot be said about JP.
But road furniture saves lives for the rest of the population. Its existence is just a reality cycling organisers are going to have to deal with.
Rest in Peace, Gianni Savio 🖤
It's worth a try; it's a low-cost, easily reversible change. Not as effective as improving course safety, though.
HAHAHAHA!!! I loved Dan's bloopers at the very end!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! 😚😂😂❤❤
Gear ratio limitations would definitely lead to training for increased cadence in the sprint, which seems much more chaotic in a bunch finish than bigger gearing. If anything, regulations should focus on safe layouts and hardware for the finish.
They have tried slowed the peloton down, they allow too many press motorbikes into the peloton. They seem to stop the speed of certain riders at the most inappropriate times all the time.
Kindred spirits, Dan. That's my expletive combo of choice as well. 😄
That's the easiest solution! Bring back the 13 or 14 tooth final position cogs on the cassetts and make jumps between gears even closer. It worked in Mercxx's era, and nobody would complain about faster climbing than back then. Simple.
What limit for chainring, 53?
I loved the ending of this episode! :D
I can't think how restricting gears is going to either reduce accidents, nor reduce their effect. The difference in speed is too small and it isn't speed in itself that is the issue at all. Almost all of them are down to rider error, overlapping wheels, fast decents (which isn't gear bound), poor road conditions a little bit, or just being too crowded as everyone wants to be in the same place.
Random suggestions for slowing the peloton:
- Go back to shallow wheels with 32 spokes? Wheel manufacturers wouldn't enjoy it...
- Make helmets less aero? (perhaps not impactful enough)
- Change how radios are setup so that every rider in the peloton doesn't get told to get to the front for the upcoming corner? (e.g. One way radios, one radio per team etc.)
I don't think max gearing restriction will help. That will only get even more people battling at the front of the peleton since the strongest won't be able to ride away from the slightly less strong. Also, it will not reduce the speed going downhill much either.
I don't think there is any one solution to this and the problem will not disappear regardless of what is done, it will still be humans riding the bikes. ;)
A very simple solution that will serve two purposes - 1) safety by slowing down the peloton and 2) make the sport more equitable and more open. Racing bikes (in all categories) almost require full aero frames plus expensive wheels. A top aero set-up (wheels/frame) can make a significant difference over 40kph.
When I was racing (in the 2000's) many still raced on box aluminum wheels with regular carbon bikes. My elite (senior 1/2 team in Canada) rode on bikes that were under $2,000.
And, they were very similar to the bikes that you saw at the Tour (in terms of pace). You saw Mavic Ksyrium's (aluminum regular profile) under many riders. Now, riders ALL have super aero frames and aero rims, that would cost well north of $5,000 per bike.
Sprinting on small gears is a nightmare and more dangerous because the group bunches up... L'abitibi's downhill sprint on junior gears was a nightmare lol
They pretty bunched up now.. 🤷🏻♂️
He’s not wrong. I say, go ahead and get drastic on the gearing: Mercx and his contemporaries were able to climb Mont Ventoux and sprint as fast as necessary with five or six speed freewheels and (I believe) a 53/39 front ring combo. Limit the gearing to that maximum (2x5 or 2x6) and maybe that will slow things down enough to improve safety.
52/ 42 would have been more common I think.
I think your cadence argument is accurate.
😀
My opinion: you could have them race on 'one-by' & they'd still have crashes...
I love the bloopers at the end👏👏
Loving the outtakes at the end!
Two quickies I'd recommend are larger tires, maybe those new Parelli 40s, and no computers so no distracting screens at speed. And body armor, of course. And after last year's hype for the Big Four in the Tour came to a halt because of one terrible crash, I am no longer anticipating anything other than the races themselves. One fall, major or rinky-dink, can end a rider's season or worse and it is all most unfortunate for them and the sport. And as a fan, I'm hopeful for better for each and every one of them. Racing life should be the start of a accomplished life, nothing less. And thanks, Dan and GCN Racing, for all your coverage as this new season is about to begin, woohoo.
90% of deaths and major injuries come from downhill racing on narrow icy oiled and extremely wet road. Change this! Reduce peloton size by using wider roads in towns less islands and road furniture and within 5k of end of race
Loved the bloopers at the end 😂
There’s points in races where even on the biggest gears riders are spinning out
You can fix things here and there, but the nature of the sport is the primary reason behind most crashes. If anything, it's surprising to me that there's not more crashes, given how closely knit a peloton is at such speeds and adrenaline levels.
It's almost like saying, "oh let's have a street fight tournament, but we need to make sure every participant is uninjured"
I like the idea about the gearing. And also there have to be Zone's when going downhill where you have to break to a real slow speed. Maybe going throw something left, right, left like in rally racing stages.
Seems sensible. 53x11 is fine. We need to avoid riders attacking on fast downhills. They don’t want to - generally - but they’re under pressure to do so.
I appreciate that gear restrictions are widely unpopular and asking racers to go slower feels unnatural. So you see most people turning to other things like Road furniture and want to ignore speed as key part in the formula for safer races. Question, do we think accidents like Gino’s would have happened if the speed was 15-20% lower?
Safety? They didn't race with helmets for 80 years.
In Formula 1 racing, the drivers forced the governing body to change the cars and race courses because of lack of safety and drivers dying during races and practice sessions and as result the sport is much safer today. I think the riders MUST take the stand against the UCI to make the sport safer, for example the courses need to be safer of which there is obvious change that could be made for safety of the riders (narrowing the course at the finish for a sprint finish, just one obvious example) rules need to be changed for the safety of riders being the PRIORITY making the sport respect the riders not ignoring the dangers. No one should DIE in a bicycle race!!! Completely inexcusable!!!
They should legislated tires - tire width and tread to guarantee a certain level of traction.
The increased friction would slow the peleton down (a bit), decrease the likelihood of skids, and allow the riders to respond better to emergencies.
Guess you gotta do something, the real solution is just use bikes that handle well at those speeds but the peloton isn't gonna go back to steel/rim so slowing the bikes down another way makes sense. Maybe there will be a way to make disc mounts put pressure on both sides of the spokes and wheel in the future so the bikes don't get blasted to one side in heavy downhill braking.
Please give us an update on the investigation of Muriel Furher. She was a cyclist who believed in the sport she loved. If the UCI wont give us updates on the death of one of their own, we need be informed about whats been found. So hard to find information.
Mandating wider tires would increase rider control. It wouldnt be enough by itself, but it would be a step in the right direction. Let say a minimum of 40mm. If that costs everyone 2-3w then thats just a bonus.
nah, these are the best riders on the planet, don't start hobbling their bikes.
40mm? Are you nuts or just thinking this is Gravel?
@@seanmccuen6970 we are already doing that for safety with the weight limit. this is just more of that.
@@Der_Richiee riders already use 32mm tires of their own volition. 40 isnt that much more, not significantly slower, and its objectively safer.
@@aasdfaasdfg9404 How many crashes would it prevent?
There will always be riders capable of descending faster than others. That won't change if you ban certain gear ratios, you'll just change when and where they'll take risks to gain positions. They'll brake latter and corner faster instead of overtaking in the relatively safer, straighter segments of a descent. To my mind, this won't make the sport any safer, in fact it'll make it much more dangerous.
If I wanted to slow the sport down to make descending safer, I'd be more inclined to focus on when and where the greats risk of crashing occurs. It's not on the straight fast bits of a descent, it's in the braking zones and corners. I think a better solution would be to get rid of disk brakes and wider, low pressure tyres (anything over 28-30mm on a road stage) that encourage later and harder braking on approach, entry and cornering. It may seem counter intuitive but increasing braking zones and the distance it takes to scrub off speed encourages a more cautious approach, necessitating earlier, more gradual braking than the late banzai braking synonymous with disk brakes and wide contact patches.
In short, disk brakes encourage higher corner approach speeds and later braking. Rim brakes don't. The latter is safer, but it will always be a dangerous sport as long as it's raced on public roads.
Maybe speedbumps when descending the mountain passes too. 😂
It is worth trying out I think, no harm in that, maybe for a stage race. I'm biased though, I want a junior cassette for 12 speed haha. Otherwise (and probably either way, I am sticking with my 11 speed 14-28 cassette on my tri bike. It puts my mortal ideal cadence in the center of the block.
I'm all for safety, and glad to see Wout back. But slowing riders down, I say "good luck". The basic concept of racing is the faster racer wins. And I don't think slowing the riders down is the immediate answer. There are other things that could be done to make road racing safer. For instance, using barricades where there is a curbed island that splits the Peloton left or right. Or constraining fans at the top of climbs, so they aren't able to jump in front of the racers, or take them out by sticking cardboard signs in front of them. Just a thought.🤔
They a fearing Pogys 56x11 on his new Rig
As far as i can remember, there has always been crashes in road biking. 180 riders riding shoulder to shoulder up and down mountain winding roads is just a dangerous sport. I guess they could improve the road surface. I do think that the barriers that are used to fence the roads in seem to be a hazard on itself. I want to imagine there could be a better designed barrier that wouldnt rip your flesh apart if you happened to crash into it.
On flatter roads, gearing could help slow riders down and might reduce crashes. However, on descents, where riders can reach speeds over 100 km/h due to gravity and their aerodynamic position, gearing doesn't make much of a difference. Tragically, we have lost some great professional cyclists on descents, such as Gino Mäder in 2023, Wouter Weylandt, and Fabio Casartelli. Would gearing have changed their outcomes or slowed them down?
I ride a 10 kg road bike with 46 x 11 and can't reach more than 60-70 km/h in descents.
With a loaded MTB for touring I managed 80 km/h.
@@DR_1_1 ok?
The point is the ability to not be spun out at high speeds on descents, not the absolute speed they are reaching. Large chainrings allow big gear ratios and the ability to continue pedaling and accelerating on a fast descent. That’s the problem. Not the descent or speed itself.
@silly since you can't understand my post without some help, to me this proves that WvA proposition would be effective in limiting maximum speeds.
And maybe also favorise him, as a big heavy guy...
@@DR_1_1 and to your point, if a rider chooses to be heavier to gain an advantage on descending, then they will pay for that in terms of the watts it takes to climb. There’s always been physiological differences between riders. No changes there from status quo. There’s no basis in @silly’s weight argument
I agree with the many comments on road furniture. However, i dont see how that will change for a 1 day event like a Tour stage passing through town.
Van Aerts suggestion seems like something concrete. Would be interesting to see what alrernatives pop-up in the months to come
Thanks for all the news, Dan. Entertaining as always!
Just sad, that I won‘t be able to catch all the live action from Switzerland where I live as both Discovery+ and Max are not available. 😢 Any alternatives?
I say enforced tire standards for wet conditions.
That’s a valid point
I would love a training 14-40 training cassette that allows me to have lower gear to stay in zone 2 on steep climbs. I don't really care to pedal over 50km/h. But for racing, I still like to have bigger gears like 11-34.
I'd say that street furniture is increasingly dangerous, installed at the whim of local councils. Here in the UK, as well as speed humps we have kerb extensions into the road for no apparent reason (surely the most dangerous of all). Any rider ploughing into one of these would at the least be seriously injured. Why not make it a requisite that if a town wishes to say, host a TdeF stage finish, then street furniture is removed and the course made safe?
It may be the case of no single change, but lots of incremental changes. Uphill sprint finishes, bypassing bottlenecks inside cities, reduction of riders on a team. Oddly, more races avialable on the same day could improve safety by forcing teams to choose which race to do.
UCI could enforce a mandatory minimum bike weight of 30 pounds or 13.61 kilograms. Try riding a road bike FAST that weighs 30 lbs! Or, even heavier. Bring back rim brakes. Enforce a mandatory number of pull-ups and push-ups during the race. There are many options to increase safety but no one wants to be forced to ride slower.
Keirin racers use uniform bikes. It highlights cyclists' power and skill. Geear uniformity would permit the bike makers to continue getting exposure and allow the cyclist to demonstrate their power, skill, and fitness while slowing down the peloton. Gearing constraints could be done with an eye toward the course and its dangers. Multiday events could have day-specific gearing.
Slowing the bikes down reminds me of the problem they had in the Javelin competition in the Olympics. The distances the javelin was being thrown was too far making it dangerous for competitors on the track. So they changed the balance on the javelin cutting the distance by 30%. For bikes I imagine it would be down to increasing the weight and returning to steel frames.
The javelin was flying out of the field and was endangering other athletes so redesigning it kept it with the field and solved the issue. But with cycling even with slightly slower speeds crashes will still happen. That way people will keep getting injured and passing away on occasions.
@@mateagoston8145Usually crashing at lower speeds hurts less!
I don't think that using steel frames would make a difference. Riders were able to reach and sustain 30mph+ before the era of carbon bikes. I remember reading that with the advent of Reynolds 753 tubing, the TI-Raleigh team of the 1970s-80s era managed to get the weight of a racing bike down to 17 1/2 lbs (7.9 kilos). That's well within carbon territory.
If you changed the gearing for everyone,then it would still be the same results. Like people have said less traffic islands and tight bends ,plus wider roads at the finish might help . But your always going to get accidents,it's just the mature of the sport
When it comes to safety improvements I don't think just random guesses are the way to go.
If you look at how the British government react to a major catastrophe they hold a public enquiry looking into all the different aspects of major catastrophe, looking into what went right and what went wrong, followed by making a series of recommendations that the government can ignore ready for the next time the same thing happens again.
I think in order to look at safety in cycling we need to have a similar process where factors like the response times of ambulances, the amount of first aid training people have is examined, through to what actually killed the cyclist, where it was a curb to the head or falling off a cliff, these things have different solutions. Also did all the equipment work as it is suppose to, whether it's helmets tires, crash barriers, whatever.
If someone dies on a alpine decent then the solutions to that will be very different to if they die in a crash in a sprint finish.
If you want to slow the bikes down then you need an aerodynamic rule change considering that aerodynamics is the main reason modern bikes are going faster.
More speed = More Excitement! Let's get the riders and the bikes up to 100km/hr!!!
I'm all for Short block cassettes but the opposite, they should match those of the 90s, when cycling was a hard up hills and fast on flats.
If we talk about racing in general, we can look at what they did in North America with NASCAR. When they had an increase in accident, they slowed the cars down which resulted in more competitive racing. Much more exciting for the fans. So perhaps slowing the bikes down would do the same. One idea perhaps is to increase the minimum weight of the bikes. In other words, make them heavier. Instead of making the minimum weight 6.8 kg how about making it 7.5 kg.
The safest thing to do would be to have a minimum tire width. Riders would have much more grip and yet can pedal as hard as they want. Of course then the industry has to build more road bikes with bigger tire spacing (which they already do more). It would have much more impact for the hobbyists like you and me, who could appreciate the extra comfort and safety.
Give the industry a set date to adapt : Lets say from 2026 onwards its mandatory to have min 40 mm tires.
It would take nootthing away from racing.
Only thing is: maybe some pros might start riding faster around corners, bc they have more grip which contradicts the argument of safety a little bit.
Still, they would be a bit slower, bad roads would be less of a problem, tire innovation for fast rolling wide tires would flourish...
Aaaalso: maybe increase the minimum bike weight from 6.8 to 8 to have more durable products for us consumers?
The increase in crashes come from compact bunches of riders going fast, doesn't have anything to do with tire grip. Min wider tires would mean riders take more risks on descents. Most riders are on 28mm anyways.
Why not go on Dutch bikes then? Or increase the minimum weight to 15 kg? Or less aero bikes? The reason why wider tires are necessary in the first place is too much braking power and overly stiff frames from disc brakes. Go back to rim brakes and the constant crashes due to overbraking will stop, the speed on descents will slow, and so will the crashes. The available data is pretty clear, even though admittedly not conclusive. Injuries in the pro peloton pretty much doubled since around 2020, which is when disc brakes were adopted by most riders. The industry has since tried to make road bikes safer by turning them into gravel bikes...
SAFETY and SLOWING DOWN. Make all races UNSUPPORTED without radios. That will slow things down. Rider will have to think instead of pedalling like a crazy race horse.
Like the world championships, you mean? Where Muriel Furrer died?
Restricted gears is dumb. How many crashes are related to spinning out the max gear? Compare with most restricted gearing of single speed crits and they have plenty of crashes. UCI should be analyzing every crash and listing causes, then start working on the top causes of crashes. Right now, no one even knows what is the biggest cause of crashes
This, empirically, from watching lots of races, most crashes are from debris, wet patches, bad pavement, road furniture, touching wheels on sprints, etc, not that many crashes on top speed descents where you need highest gears.
How about some protection on dangerous corners on high speed descents? Air fences, hay bales, etc. Or, like in the Isle of Man TT, just acknowledge the danger and accept that racers are going to die occasionally.
Yes- accept it. A little much to expect padding and catch nets over 150 miles of racecourse.
I want to see a race series where everyone has to use the exact same equipment, and leave the results entirely up to strategy, luck, and fitness
Juniors used to be limited to 13s I believe. I believe it was dropped 4 or 5 yrs ago. (I run one of the 10 spd 13-28 Jr cassettes on my trainer to get the close ratios)
Max gear for juniors when I raced in the 80s was 53x15. I suppose it crept up over the years. 53x13 (13--21) would have been a typical top gear for seniors. With a 6 speed rear end, you really had to pick your gears carefully.
go back to low profile rims and change the frame dimension rules back to round profiles would slow the riders down
There is more than 10 km/h speed @ 120 rpm between 53/11( 72 km/h) and 55/10 (83 km/h). 10 km/h in a peloton descent can make the différence concerning safety. Look at the carshes of Van Aert in Belgium and Vingegaard/ Evenepoel in Spain : Crashes at very high speeds in peloton. During many years 53/11 was the biggest ratio, remember!!!
None of those crashes where pedaling at top speed due to gearing.
Did you watch the videos? Vingegaard was coasting down a descent and crashed because of bad road surface before the corner, wout was due to contact in the peloton, they where in a long straight.
@@DittersGustav Of course at such speeds you are coasting, but the larger the gears, the more easily you reach such speeds! The speeds in the pelotons are getting higher and higher, no one can say the opposite, Van Aert's proposal to limit the gear ratios is going in the right direction.
e=mv^2 - 5% slower is 10% less energy.
Mountain bikers wear lightweight armor these days.
(The hand position and bum-below saddle rules aren't based on data, may actually encourage more dangerous positions)
53 x 12 max gear, 32mm minimum tire width, 35mm max rim depth, 38cm minimum handlebar width, no road furniture in the last 25k, UCI points only for the top 3 places, and mountain stages finish on the summit instead of down the other side.
Honestly you could go even bigger for the tire width requirement as 32mm tires are just as fast as 28 and 30mm and only provide modest grip gains. Once you get over 35mm that’s when the speeds start to decline and the grip increases would be enough to meaningfully increase safety on descents.
Nothing wrong with an old-school 53x11
@@Thaddeus_Howe I generally agree, and vaciliated on 32 or 35 in my post, but I don't think a lot of current racing bikes have clearance for 35s. It could even be 40mm eventually, though I think tire manufacturers will soon figure out they could use lighter casing in 40's, because of the lower pressure, and 40's might become faster than 35's. 2.2 inch mtb tires are often faster than 45 mm gravel tires for this reason.
Juveniles were restricted because big gears damage young legs! I did bike checks years ago at Eastway to enforce the rules. Restricting top gears for elites on safety grounds doesn't seem so odd to me.
Curbing a 54 + rings would pull back from the outright power that they offer, yes a 53 is big BUT it's not a 54 and they're serious sizes for a chainring! I used to race a 53 and could out-power riders on 52 easily on some situations... it's a no-brainer
5:12 The carnage might not be as bad as you think on a recumbent. The riders feet are in front of them and they are much closer to the ground.
For safety make the teams smaller, only 5 riders per team per race. It could also help smaller budget teams to be more competitive.
I don't think targeting small races for UCI points is a problem. This is exactly what the point system is supposed to encourage so teams aren't skipping the small races
Just make the bikes slower all things being equal👍 make the tires safer but slower, job done
Look at urban DH mountain biking then talk again what's dangerous. Those riders would die easily too if they would crash but they just ride with sense and that's why we don't hear about much fatalities from DH. What we need is crash detectors and paying attention from the race organisers. That way Muriel Furrer's life could have been saved. I would imagine a world class organisation like the UCI to make racing safer with tools that don't take away from the excitement and once they exhausted all those options they might use tools that take slightly away from the excitement. But by the looks of it they perhaps works the other way around: Making racing safer with tools that take away all the excitement and once that's been exhausted then making it safer with tools that actually make sense.
It’s called racing for a reason.
This is subjective..the UCI does implement rulings and obviously the buck stops wither and their decisions. Obviously this should be looked at. However this IS the world of TOP TIER professional cycle racing. It gains its support from the spectators who in turn buy products etc..and this in turn attracts sponsors. At the same time the combination of this is that the sport at this level (and indeed the tiers below World Tour) needs to be attractive and in that I mean EXCITING. I remember even this channel saying that riders had got faster..surely that's a great thing in this sport. Where I am actually going is that this IS professional cycling we are talking about with riders at the very PINNACLE of their game and to be frank..if they are too worried about the speeds etc..then perhaps it's not the sport for them. Just to caveat this..remember when they added cobbles in the TdF a few years back..? Cancerlla amongst others was an advocate for striking..reason..too dangerous..HOWEVER..Happy to race it on the Spring Classics..yes and I know some will say "but this is on a major tour and has no place in it" well I beg to differ...
One thing that could slow the big races down..make them longer...remember the early Tour de France was WAY longer (as were the Stages)...
I might have missed it...but what about Michael Hubner? Not much been said about him
I like that pro cyclists are chiming in on solutions to the problem. Athlete but in its important
You want SAFER? Get rid of flat Sprint stages altogether.
But if "safety" doesn't matter THAT much - then make them do the entire stage on single speeds...even a heavy Netherlands "Swapfiets" / Chinese "Flying Pigeon" type bike.
We’d see some very high cadences if there was a gearing restriction.
Make roads safer first. No matter how the speed is reduced, riders would still crash on bad roads.
They would just ride faster...
I would like a show about cyclist injuries, in particular calf/foot numbness and cramping. Surely the pros experience this more than us. What do the pros do to alleviate this?
No changes other than massive warnings for roundabouts and road furniture and plenty of protection around dangerous corners on descents. Bike racing is inherently dangerous. It’s part of the sport and the intense competition. “The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat “
Make sprint uphill finishes at the bottom of climbs?
If I wanted to slow them down, I'd suggest the following:
Minimum tyre width 32mm measured, maximum wheel depth of 40mm and increasing the minimum weight up to 7.3kg along with restricted gearing.
This would not only bring the speeds down, but quite effectively blunt the arms tech race.
Manufacturers are free to build non UCI legal bikes and do so anyway so they can still sell 6kg superbike flagships.
The problem of making cycling safer is MASSIVE. In my opinion making the gears more LOW would not work. They need to TAPER the side of the roads so that cycling's reputation doesnt FADE away
My idea for making sprints safer is to draw lanes in the last 500 meters (maybe further) of the stage. Car lanes aren’t narrow enough to be a good proxy. I think the sprinters are going so fast helping to guide them in a straight line to the finish could help keep riders from crossing wheels. If a rider comes out of his/her lane, then they could be disqualified.
The key point we are in 2024 the time. Lady rider passed away, without help an awhile. Need more Marshall
Safety ... helmets, gloves, suits, ... sugestions like use streets wide, no speed bumps, no corners and counter corners , ... I mean improve the tech For safety and improve the planning by really using the common sense by not putting any risk on the racers... if you see track cycling has cover all this ... could be translate into the streets ... safety! is there grab it.
I like Wout but his idea doesn't make sense. I can't see how that will make a difference
3:55 where’s the case study that speed restriction would improve rider safety?
It’s gotta be equal parts rider decision making, road conditions, weather.
Surely the bike is such a small component of the overall issue.
restricting gearing won't change anything - they can and will still bomb down hills without pedaling at 80kmh+ and usually crash because of broken roads / road furniture or loosing grip in corners. Only thing I can imagine, which would really increase safety is something like the wearable airbag which inflates in case of a crash to protect their head and neck
Not correct to say it will change nothing. Peak speeds would still go down, those guys throw 800 watts bombs at the pedals after each corner still
I would definitely be in favour of riders having to wear those inflatable things on stages with big descents. Riders might complain about the aero losses or discomfort, but if everyone wears the same then it shouldn't make a lick of difference to the results.
@@JackMottand they are not crashing at turn exits because of pedaling, so whats the point? You can reach 80km/h on alpine descents with 0 watts.
@@DittersGustav average speeds will be lower, so on average crashes will happen at a lower speeds.
There could be one solution for two problems; race safety and bike costs. Only allow bikes that sell for less than $2000.
Make the bikes heavier to slow things down for the professionals and make the races safer. The MLB uses heavy wooden bats compared to lighter metal bats for youth and collegiate levels. One reason for this is player safety.
Seems like sprinters in recumbents would be much less dangerous actually, not more so
I'm always amazed by organizations way of trying to solve an issue by restricting the equipment... Gear ratio can not solve the problems, see the youth raceing...
There is simple solution, may not be the most popular one, reduce the number of riders per team, tactics would have to change, less people to work for the main rider...
Which shouldn't be much of the problem as it would allow better exposure of the teams and riders in more races
How about speed limits? We have the ability to have telemetry on every bike. Just limit the speeds on the descents.