Dan Bigham: "The Tour de France isn't too fast"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 янв 2025
- Christian Prudhomme, Tour de France director, claims today's pro cyclists are "too fast," putting their safety at risk. But Dan Bigham, head of engineering at Red Bull-BORA-hansgrohe and an advocate of marginal gains, disagrees.
In this episode, we unpack Bigham’s powerful response: “Speed isn’t the problem.” Instead, he highlights the real dangers plaguing professional cycling, including unsafe roads, fragile equipment, and inadequate medical response.
Do you think pro cyclists are going too fast, or is there more to the story?
#ProCycling #TourDeFrance #CyclingSafety #DanBigham #BikeRadar
Tour de France Pro Bikes are HEAVY! Here's Why…
→ • Tour de France Pro Bik...
Crucial Tour De France Bikes: Pogacar Vs Vingegaard
→ • Crucial Tour De France...
Why Tour de France Teams Are Divided On Chain Waxing
→ • Why Tour de France Tea...
The HOTTEST Bikes Of The Tour De France 2024
→ • The HOTTEST Bikes Of T...
2024 Tour De France Bike Prices - Ranked
→ • 2024 Tour De France Bi...
Hands-On: Colnago Y1RS - Pogacar's 2025 Tour de France Bike
→ • Hands-On: Colnago Y1RS...
Listen to the BikeRadar Podcast
→ www.bikeradar....
Follow BikeRadar on our social media channels:
→ / bikeradar
→ / bikeradar
→ / bikeradar
BikeRadar is supported by Mountain Biking UK and Cycling Plus Magazine -For more information and to subscribe please visit
→ bit.ly/3nMr3Rn
For more content like this see our latest subscription offer -
→ www.cyclingplu...
→ www.mbuk.com/s...
Do you think pro cyclists are going too fast, or is there more to the story? 👇
I'd like to see a steel bike category!
Not sure why/how the weight of bikes has an impact on how bad the injuries are sustained on the riders. Surely if the bikes integrity is not to blame, it’s down to safety gear and environment. Racers will ride to the max regardless.
@3:06 "or you can crash your bike and it's still safe to ride". An increased minimum weight would allow for putting in more material to make the bikes survive a crash and still be usable and safe after that. Realistically though without adding to the crash testing of the components any minimum weight increase is just going to end up as ballast strapped to the bottom of the BB shell.
Edit: Dan does a really good job explaining what the increased min weight could be used for at 3:45
If some crashes are caused by loose bottles, then minimum weight (or some retention metric) is a great idea. There’s precedent for disallowing faster but unsafe technology, such as aero bar extensions.
I like Dan´s idea. More safety gear is needed, perhaps some form of suspension to increase traction. Wider tyres perhaps?
If you increase the weight limit, you actually increase the downhill speeds, because not only are the riders on heavier bikes carrying more momentum, but those rides will be aero bikes cleaving mountain roads at 100+ km/h.
They already hit over 100kph in plenty of races. Speed is not the problem, incompetence at the uci is. A girl died at junior world championships after crashing in a ditch and wasn’t found for 1-2hrs until after the race had ended. That is completely unacceptable and for the uci to blame speeds to distract from their incompetence is shameful
@@bengoodwin83 exactly. Increasing the min weight of the bike would allow for adding a spec GPS transponder and accelerometer package that would detect a crash, alert central race control, and help could be immediately dispatched. Ideally that help would be directly out of the convoy, at least for a first response. So what you do is start mandating these safety systems and start adding them on to the min bike weight. you don't just increase the min weights and hope "someone" will use the extra weight for safety. Lets say 7.5kG min for the bike, and the GPS computer in 500g, so the minimum package weight is now 8kg.
They need to ride more cautiously.
Roads are better than ever, but disc brakes allow you to brake later, so they might ride closer in groups, slow later before a bend, also it's much easier to lock your front wheel in emergency situations.
Riders are faster downhills now regardless (higher skill levels, more aero bike setups) disc brakes and wider tyres are necessary to deal with the higher speeds otherwise the risk of overshooting corners is much higher and the ramifications of that are much more severe then just crashing on the road
@@thegreatseprano9918 They are not "necessary" on the road, they just allow to brake later, to gain a few seconds here and there, and maybe also take more risks, as I mentioned.
@@DR_1_1 They are necessary in the rain given that pros ride carbon rims. Disc brakes are also necessary to allow clearance for wider tyres.
You can brake just as late with rim brakes, the limit of grip is on the tyre compound, not the braking surfaces.
Pro riders are "racers" and they are paid to perform, paid to win. If this requires taking risks there always be ones willing to take more risk to win. It's what the sport is all about. The notorious F1 has become the circus with pilots obeying team orders which are basically calculated on the fly, and they rarely RACE each other.
it's not increasing the weight limit for the sake of it, it's making more safety gear required and then increasing the weight limit to account for that. it totally makes sense to me- the bottles thing, if we can stop one crash a year by making the bottle holders more secure at the cost of 40g a rider it seems insane that the UCI hasn't stepped in and said 'your bottle cages need to be x% more secure'
Changing the road design for a grand tour that follows public roads for >2000mi is not in the least feasible, like in F1 where the track is owned by a private company and is only maybe 2-5mi long. The cars in F1 are designed to have a cockpit around the driver that remains intact, while the rest of the vehicle parts absorb energy by obliterating into pieces - also not feasible on a bicycle. Tire design improvements (grip) could help, but that will also encourage riders to go even faster through curves, defeating the purpose from the safety end, as riders also crash from touching wheels, losing focus in a peloton setting, etc, and are then going faster with more crash energy.
The energy of the rider + bike is 1/2 * mass * speed^2. As aero design in bikes keeps allowing the rider to increase speed, the energy in a crash increases by a power law. If the rider can go 10% faster, the crash impact energy is 21% higher, not 10% higher. More bike mass will make them slow down for corners, so it may help there, but it would not affect straight-line top speed, as that is dominated by aero drag. Restricting aero design would be most effective in my opinion than restricting weight design. Dan's other suggestions are better reacting to a crash that has happened (telemetry, monitoring), and those are good ideas, but the severity of crashes when they do occur would still be increasing.
I mostly agree that changing the road design is not possible, but choosing a route with better roads is possible. You could prep the courses better, in that they could be cleaned and inspected, pot holes filled, gravel and sand removed, etc. Better course book with hazards called out, and marking of hazards along the roadway, for example by chalk paint some number of meters before the hazard along with tall flags or signs for better visibility deep in the peleton. Road furniture could be padded, and protected by hay bales or similar, crash netting temporally installed on drop offs to prevent large falls off the sides of mountains, along with bales or the like to force riders further from the edge.
It's not necessarily more grip, it's a smoother transition between grip and no grip, this is especially true of grip in mixed conditions. You want predictable grip. It wouldn't be a stretch to think that ABS could be a thing.
I fully agree that you have the speed/energy part correct, but you don't see the same sort of injuries in MotoGP even with much higher speeds. Helmets with inflatable head protection are a thing, and could be mandatory. Hip, shoulder, and chest protection armor could be required.
I agree it's not feasible to make racecourses on public roads like F1 tracks, but the UCI already regulates course design and I think Dan's simply saying those regulations need to be improved.
As you say, I think Dan's point re the minimum weight limit is to allow for better sensors / monitoring, that would enable better responsiveness to crashes when they inevitably occur. With better regulation and safety testing, heavier bikes could also be made more durable - meaning that when a rider gets back on a bike after a crash (as often happens), we're lessening the risk of failures later in the race.
Obviously the speed at which a crash occurs does make a difference - we'd all prefer to crash a 10kph than 100kph, after all - but I don't think slowing the riders down from 45kph to 40kph (or whatever) is going to prevent any of the crashes we commonly see today. And for those crashes which can't be prevented, then the riders clearly need better protective equipment (clothing and helmets, for example), and better medical response, as Dan says.
Cheers for watching, Simon
@@bikeradar I'll give some more numbers to prove the reduction in speed could help prevent some crashes. Your example of reducing from 45kph down to 40kph:
26.6% more energy @ 45kph - that means 26% shorter braking distance @40kph. F1 driver's reaction time is 0.2sec. Assuming a bike racer is that quick as well, @45kph, the rider has traveled 8.2ft before he/she even reacts to what is happening in front of them, while @40kph the rider has traveled 7.2ft. That coupled with the 26% shorter braking distance after reacting could definitely prevent more of these crashes from occurring. And an oz of prevention is worth a pound of cure...
Wider tires and longer wheelbases would make the road conditions less of an issue. No way you can control all the roads on a grand tour.
Obviously roads aren't designed for bike racing, but the UCI already regulates course design and I think Dan's simply calling for improvements in this area, alongside the other things he mentions re the designs of bikes and equipment. Cheers for watching, Simon
At the very beginning he says changing speed would "change the magnitude of the effect when a crash happens". "magnitude of the effect" seems to be really to obscuring the meaninging, in plain english you might say it changes whether someone might die in a crash, which seems like the whole point.
My point was more that certain people are claiming speed is the cause of increased crashes. My point was that this is false, and therefore explained what speed actually does in crashes.
@@danbigham6184 sure but I don't think people who are complaining about "increased crashes" really won't care about number of crashes if the "magnitude" was small. What is concerning is when people are hurt very badly or die. So the "magnitude" is the *actual* problem.
@@danbigham6184 but also with increased speed riders have less time to react to avoid *certain* type of crashes, so it seems very likely decreased speed would result is less crashes though obviously not all types.
I am not saying the other things you mentioned won't *also* reduce the number of crashes. But I think it is more clear to say that if people don't want to reduce speed it is not because it won't reduce the number of and magnitude crashes, but rather they would like to try other things first.
I’m not sure if increasing weight limits would make bikes safer but, I would be cool to have onboard cameras like F1 and it would allow some cool aero bikes to be made & raced.
The most effective thing they can do is create anti lock brakes for bikes. Image if cars didn't have abs, the deaths would go right back up to ridiculous numbers before they had abs
Depends on the course if you going up a mountain stage definitely not going fast if you hit a strong headwind it slows you down
How about using the rally car experience and some form of automated navigator instruction and yes there are horrendous accidents in rallying because drivers push over the limits. Tyres would be a good starting point as well as brakes and agree with ABS.
While I agree that disc brakes can be dangerous on the road in emergency situations, we are talking about a bike...
I think electric devices should be banned from race bikes, just like performance enhancing drugs should be banned.
Riding fast on the road, especially downhill,is inherently dangerous. I compare riding my full sus with big tires where braking compresses you into the bike with my road bike with narrow little tires (32mm is still relatively narrow), no suspension, and much less stable position. It's night and day. I'm really impressed by these guys descending, but it's no surprise that when they crash it's bad
Try my Genesis Croix de Fer, fitted and carrying all the accoutrements for a ride to the shops(500metres). That 15kg will put hairs on your chest.
I can foresee a new trend. Super heavy bikes: ) I will start to add weight to my 8kg bike, I am already in heavy weight league.
He only wants the weight limit increasing because then better aerodynamics can be developed which is his speciality.
Instead lookig to f1, look to motorcycle racing, even mtb.
Just make better helmets safer, regulate body armour jesus its so simple. Make them wear protective kit like every other 2 wheeled sport. We have tech to make protection light, flexible and breathable. You can make tear resistance clothing with a bit of kevlar like motorcycle jeans.
Make racing safer? Determine what is making it more dangerous before you do anything. I wonder about riders whose main qualification is watts/kg rather than ability to control a bicycle or understand racing tactics? Bicycles too stiff and hard to control? What about riders looking at gizmos on their handlebars instead of WTF they're going? Riders being yelled at via earpieces to "Get to the front!" might have something to do with it? Too many motor vehicles around the peloton with distracted or unskilled operators? Too much road furniture? Some genuine research should be done FIRST!
No thanks I want a light bike. Make racing courses safer.
Unsafe Roads, Thank you!
If the helmets were banned they would immediately take more care.
Did riders take more care before the introduction of mandatory helmets?
Ummmm poor course design with road furniture and tight turns in the run in for sprint stages, camera motos knocking off riders, slow medical response are more to blame than bike weight. What a red herring
Raising the minimum weight limit was just one suggestion amongst others that Dan made - including improving course design and medical response. Cheers for watching, Simon
Why do people keep crossreferncing cycling with f1?
It would make more sense to compare it to Motogp or World Superbikes
Aero/weight obsession, heavy use of composites?
@@MichaelSmith-fg8xh have you seen a modern Motogp bike? Unlimited budgets and engineers with the freedom to do what amounts to magic
@SystemParanoia it's a question of degrees. MotoGP:
-Outright banned composites for a long time.
-Has the bike minimum weights set at ~87% (I used CBR1000RR for comparison) the weight of a road going bike
F1:
-Has 43+ years of using composites for things like chassis
-Has min car weight of 52% of what a road car weighs (using a Ferrari 812 for reference)
If you want a safe sport play golf.
I’m sorry but that was a bunch of none sense, nicely presented as if there was infallible logical though. So, speed is not the problem, bit speed bumps or tight corners, as if speed would play no role into making those things more dangerous (ask the guys that fell because if bumpy road at the Basque Country at high speed!). Comparing cycling/bikes with F1 cars is outstretched. So F1 made the halo obligatory, what’s the equivalent for a bike?
Perhaps I misunderstood but other than the bottles issue, raising the weight limit would do what exactly for safety? Extra cameras, more views, more sensors, isn't that just for viewing pleasure and team data? I would like to see UCI mandated safety gear for racers. That way riders can't choose not to wear it to save weight. Things like inflatable vests, neck braces, etc. While they're not great for someone looking to just go out for an afternoon ride, for athletes constantly willing to push further than might be wise in the name of winning, mandated safety gear may slow them down in some ways but I feel it would be worth the trade off. I always thought that fans mobbing riders, extending arms and signs out, road hazards etc would just keep happening until someone gets seriously injured or died. Like Dan I'm sure we'd all prefer the UCI protect the riders' health and lives even if they have go too far in the name of protection rather than too little.
By sensors Dan is more thinking about real time transmitter of riders heart rate, accurate GPS location that sort of stuffs to let the organiser knows exactly where the rider is and how serious is the situation. Because shocking enough that UCI didn't know where the rider was and took hours to get medical support at the scene for the girl who passed away in a race earlier this year
As others have said, increasing the minimum bike weight limit would allow for more robust bikes and parts - which wouldn't break so easily in crashes, and could therefore be safer when riders keep riding after a crash - but also for things such as GPS trackers and other sensors that monitor the riders in real time and allow for improved medical response in the event of a crash.
Cheers for watching, Simon
Angular momentum + ill-fitting bikes
Ok, I am a complete ignorant of road bike racing but... What about excluding certain downhill sections from timing? Riders get the time once they reach the top, then they restart the race at the bottom of the valley, but the alotted time for the descent is the same for all.
No way; you're taking the advantage away from skilled, technical descenders - and making the sport even more about climbing. The sport needs to be less about climbing.......and w/kg.....
@@Andy_ATBthere're a lot of races other than grand tours or multi-day climbing in the Alpes, however crashes happen and racers get injured, e.g. van Aert's crash that completely ruined his spring calendar.
Try talking slower. We’re not in a hurry.
What “Mr F1” seems to be forgetting is the cars in Formula 1 have no difficulty in reaching weight limits. The paint was being stripped off not to reach over all weight limits but to allow developers to get weight/ballast were they wanted it, lower center of gravity, to achieve balance and performance. Exchanging cosmetic paint weight for performance ballast weight. This guy spent less than 2.5% of his adult life as a co-op student in an F1 environment, yet his background is F1? Why do you insult people with these name droppers and degrade all the hard working individuals that have made F1 thier lives.
Which is absolutely critical. Like when the mercedes w13 with the zero pods had the cockpit too far forward etc
Not true the first year of the new regulations (2022) the cars were in fact overweight, only the Alfa Romeo Sauber was close to the minimum weight. Therefore saying they had “no difficulty” is incorrect, the teams even agreed to raise the weight limit before the season started. That’s why it is so critical to get to or even below the weight limit so the teams themselves can alter the weight distribution and center of gravity by adding weight in strategic places.
You forgot how literally every team had issues with the weight limit in 2022 and this the beginning of this season for Alpine. That Alpine was overweight by a lot and literally a tractor early this year...
I suggest speed limits during decents just like they forbid the aero tuck. there are still amateur idiots out there today doing it in training. wtf.
Worth it for the KOM
@@davidli3582make Strava block downhill segments at all (as they do now for live downhill segments), make Strava block segments that have downhill sections... If you can't be KOM, there'll probably be less people trying to go as fast as possible? Yeah, and ban Safa's channel too ;)
I’m not sure this guy is much of a road racing authority.
Wrong. Check his resume.
Other better motorsports are available..........
Heavier bikes would be great for the sport in general.
Nowadays, you cannot be 70 kg and win grand tours, it's just not possible.
A 7,5 kg bike would level the playing field and be a slight penalty for 60kg riders, allowing for more riders that cannot get this light in a healthy way to compete with them.
Heavier athletes are more resilient and won't hurt themselves as much when crashng.
Bikes will get better as well, being designed for a normal human weight will behave better for the end consumer and parts will be safer overall.
Cycling is a great supporting activity for other sports with its low impact and high energy expenditure.
On the other hand, most athletes do not want to get that light to perform or compete and that restricts the sport to people whose onl sport is cycling.
If being light wasn't so overpowered in cycling, a lot more people would take it up and compete, growing the sport along with its industry.
Being a clyde myself at 195cm and 98kg, I love cycling but I don't want to have to sacrifice my strength and health just to not get dropped on a climb or have to play detective with parts specs to make sure they are safe.
Full face helmets, leathers and preferably 4 wheels. 🫳🎤
Velomobiles! But then we need to solve the issue with heat.
Holes ✅