Descent of the Crostis

[rich p]

The riders are worried about descending the Crostis before the Zoncolan apparently, following Weylandts' death.

It was under review by the organisers but is still in I think.

Here's a vid of the descent with ski-type barriers to safeguard the most dangerous drop-offs.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv-j9c7dmzg&feature=youtu.be


Not sure I'd fancy it at high speed, on rough road in dodgy weather but maybe that's a reaction to WW's tragic accident.

 

[raindog]

There's an embedded vid on this blog showing Berto doing a recce of the climb. Apparently he says it's scary in a car, so imagine on a bike under racing conditions.
http://italiancyclingjournal.blogspot.com/2011/04/contador-on-monte-crostis-descent.html

 

[Keith Oates]

I agree with you on this one Rich, going down that road at racing speed is not something I'd want to attempt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[lukesdad]

That is a bit dodgy no wonder thry re having second thoughts.

 

[yello]

Jeez, there some darn scarey sections there. I'd not be whooping around some of those bends, that's for sure.

But, seriously, if pro-riders are worried then surely the organisers ought have a rethink?

 

[oldroadman]

The problem the organisers have is that there are not many roads in the mountains, and to get over one big climb then on to the next one, there has to be a descent. I've ridden ones almost as bad, but the drop offs on the left are tricky. Screening the outside of the right handers is good, but on the open bits it only takes one mistake to be sliding down the scree and into the trees on the left. Definitely a very "technical" one, and the surface is poor. Oddly that might make it slightly safer, as being bumped around has the effect of sloing things up a bit. Only problem being trying to feather the brakes when the wheels are not actually touching the road...!
Given a choice, my guess is they would not have used it, hence all the safety fence, recognising the difficulties. A lot will just descend steadily, but if you are not a great climber, and have lost a minute or three over the top, then it's inevitable that you will try and regain on the descent, with the attendant risks. All part of being a rider who is not an ace climber, if you can't go up so fast, learn to drop like a stone. I wouln't fancy that one a lot, though, rather lose a bit of time than get badly hurt.

 

[Foghat]

Hmm, if that video shows the worst sections, or is representative of the whole descent, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, having sped down plenty of similarly calamitous roads. The riders could always adjust their speed to allow for the hazards - just like they manage to deal with street furniture and all the dangers of Flanders such as parked cars etc - they are competent adults with full control of their descending speed, after all.

 

[Fiona N]

I'd be happy on it on my own, especially knowing it was a closed road, but I don't think I'd want to be one of 200 racing down it.

The lack of the usual shallow barrier on the drop side doesn't really make any difference, except mentally, as if you clip it, you'll go over anyway - just leaving your bike behind.

 

[montage]

Hmm, if that video shows the worst sections, or is representative of the whole descent, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, having sped down plenty of similarly calamitous roads. The riders could always adjust their speed to allow for the hazards - just like they manage to deal with street furniture and all the dangers of Flanders such as parked cars etc - they are competent adults with full control of their descending speed, after all.

The fact that one of these fully competent adults died in and earlier stage on a far easier descent is bound to be partially responsible for "all the fuss".

Yes they are very good and preventing things from going wrong, but looking at that video, if something does go wrong, it'll go wrong in a big way. It's like not wearing a seatbelt whilst driving. The odds are against you having a crash, particuarly if you are a good driver, but if you do have a crash, the odds are that the situation will be far worse.

 

[Foghat]

The fact that one of these fully competent adults died in and earlier stage on a far easier descent is bound to be partially responsible for "all the fuss".

Yes they are very good and preventing things from going wrong, but looking at that video, if something does go wrong, it'll go wrong in a big way. It's like not wearing a seatbelt whilst driving. The odds are against you having a crash, particuarly if you are a good driver, but if you do have a crash, the odds are that the situation will be far worse.

The Croix de Fer northern descent has several significantly worse failure-not-an-option-certain-death sections than those images on the Crostis, yet the riders don't object to the inclusion of that col in that direction. Most Alpine descents have some failure-not-an-option-certain-death sections if you go over the barrier or bridge parapet. And a lot of people assume that no barrier means more dangerous, which as Fiona N observes can be a misapprehension, given they are usually very low and designed for motorised vehicular traffic.

I'd say that racing on roads open to traffic and incompetent drivers as per most British road races is far more risky than that descent, as the riders have their fate entirely in their own hands on the latter. And looking at the severity of the drop-offs (and knowing the technicality and surface of the road means the speeds are unlikely to get that high) I think I'd rather overcook the Crostis descent than, for example, hit a roadside post head-on at 25mph, a hazard encountered routinely in virtually every race most professionals ride (and a fate that has seriously injured many riders), or be forced out across the central white line at the wrong moment in a British road race.

If they are sufficiently concerned to contemplate a mass protest, or being mindful of Weylandt's death, then they are presumably also just as capable of reaching a similar consensus on calling a truce on the Crostis descent, going down at a 100% safe speed, and thereby preserving the spectacle of the climb/stage for the spectators and TV viewers, which ultimately fund the riders' livelihoods.

I and my Alpine colleagues would have relished a descent like that at full bore.

 

[raindog]

Anyone remember Ullrich going off in the Tour? Everyone thought he'd plunged to his death or injury, then suddenly he reappeared with his bike.

click to view

 

[rich p]

Anyone remember Ullrich going off in the Tour? Everyone thought he'd plunged to his death or injury, then suddenly he reappeared with his bike.

click to view
[attachment=3607:ullrich crash.jpg]

Yes indeed, remember it well.

He thought he saw a pie tree apparently.

 

[philipbh]

The Croix de Fer northern descent has several significantly worse failure-not-an-option-certain-death sections than those images on the Crostis, yet the riders don't object to the inclusion of that col in that direction. Most Alpine descents have some failure-not-an-option-certain-death sections if you go over the barrier or bridge parapet. And a lot of people assume that no barrier means more dangerous, which as Fiona N observes can be a misapprehension, given they are usually very low and designed for motorised vehicular traffic.

I'd say that racing on roads open to traffic and incompetent drivers as per most British road races is far more risky than that descent, as the riders have their fate entirely in their own hands on the latter. And looking at the severity of the drop-offs (and knowing the technicality and surface of the road means the speeds are unlikely to get that high) I think I'd rather overcook the Crostis descent than, for example, hit a roadside post head-on at 25mph, a hazard encountered routinely in virtually every race most professionals ride (and a fate that has seriously injured many riders), or be forced out across the central white line at the wrong moment in a British road race.

If they are sufficiently concerned to contemplate a mass protest, or being mindful of Weylandt's death, then they are presumably also just as capable of reaching a similar consensus on calling a truce on the Crostis descent, going down at a 100% safe speed, and thereby preserving the spectacle of the climb/stage for the spectators and TV viewers, which ultimately fund the riders' livelihoods.

I and my Alpine colleagues would have relished a descent like that at full bore.

Is the Croix de Fer equally as narrow / single track in some places

I am thinking of the inability of the medical team to get access to an injured rider - if the road is blocked for any reason

It will certainly make wheel changes interesting (will the teams be deploying motor cycles on this part of the route?)

As you say - the riders can negotiate at a safe speed, but I know from my own experience that once the surface is a bit "technical" the ability to slow down safely from a previously safe speed can be tricky too (as Oldroadman alludes)

 

[Foghat]

Is the Croix de Fer equally as narrow / single track in some places

No, it isn't. The Crostis is more technical, and while some of the top section of the northern Croix de Fer side is narrow, winding and steep, I was alluding to the very high penalty for failure on some sections of that side of the Croix de Fer.

Lower down on the northern Croix de Fer, on some fast winding sections where the road runs along the side of the gorge, the penalty for failure is a trip over the medium-height roadside wall several hundred feet down the sheer wall of the gorge, not a few tens of feet down grassy slopes into bushes/trees as on the Crostis.

This was in answer to montage's apparent point that the over-riding consideration in deeming the Crostis suitable/unsuitable for inclusion should be level of penalty for failure. The Croix de Fer was just an example - there are many roads in the Alps (regulars in the Tour, Dauphine etc) where an error or misjudgement at the wrong moment means death or serious injury, yet somehow the protesters about the Crostis think an onus on the riders to adapt to the specific but manageable dangers of the Crostis is an unreasonable thing. My view as an experienced descender, and presumably the course risk assessment's conclusion, is that the risks to the riders are entirely manageable by the riders themselves and not much greater (and indeed in some cases less) than on many other descents, so the riders should get on with it without complaining and just ride appropriately, as completing the designed course is in the best interests of the Giro and cycle racing in general.