merlinextraligh

It would be good team tactics to bridge up to a break, if you can change the odds of the outcome of the break.


So if it was a two woman break with one from each team, it would make sense to try to bridge solo.


But the OP was in the break solo, so by definition wins the race if no one is able to bridge up.


IMHO, much better to discourage anyone else from chasing by riding false tempo, and marking any bridge attempts.


If anyone does try to cover your team mates's attack you get towed up with fresh legs.


And if you've got the legs to solo bridge, then you've go the legs for a late attack to still get second, and to counter attack if your team mate does get caught.


All the OP did was increase the odds that her team would lose the race, 1) by possibly towing up a competitor, or at least motiviting a competitor to ride faster, and 2) potentially frying herself.


The OP's teammate by trying to bridge, risked blowing up, and having nothing to respond to an attack from the other team's rider.

Doge

+1

No advice to give - just that your situation sounds "normal".
Before my son, and after me, there was my woman tandem partner, and my wife I would support at races. I also spent some 10 years in women's soccer. Which has more in common with women's cycling than men's cycling does.

carpediemracing 

A teammate should never chase another teammate in a solo break. It's just not done, for all sorts of reasons. Even if the field has disintegrated into chaos behind it's still poor form.

The second teammate on the road should be sitting behind the lead rider at worst, more like 3-4 riders back, sheltered and waiting for the next move. Then when it goes said teammate should follow the move, only sitting on, and decline to pull when the other riders sit/give up. Sit on the wheels. Wait.

If and when the solo break is so far up the road that it's guaranteed a win then the teammate can start doing stuff. However, by definition, even the second teammate won't be able to bridge because the original solo break is now so far up the road no one can bridge. Therefore second place is great.

With two teammates up the road the third teammate should imitate the follow moves described previously. Follow moves, decline pulling. When making a move make it decisive, typically in out sprinting the riders around you for the line.

That bridging teammate needs a stern talking to. I could see in an extreme case where such a rider would be told to leave the team. To me riding against the team's best interests justifies ejecting a rider like that. If it were my team I'd certainly strongly consider ejecting the rider off the team, although I'd have a conversation immediately after the race first. Knowing me I think such conversation would have been pretty heated as I'd be asking the rider what the hell they were thinking when they were trying to sabotage their teammate's chance at a win. If after that first conversation they their own teammate again they'd be off the team by the time they crossed the line that second time.

Alternately the solo winner can leave the team and join a different team. That would settle the teamwork question once and for all. I've seen this happen more often than the ejection, because most teams tolerate insubordination better than individuals.

This doesn't matter men or women, Juniors or Masters. It's normal racing tactics.

This is for a team that wants to win. For riders that don't care enough to complain about teammates not waiting for them, it's no big deal.

Poonjabby

I didn't know my teammate was solo. In fact, I thought she was with the strongest rider from the other team as it was very unusual for that rider to blow up like she did. My teammate said it's important for me to pay attention to what else is going on in the race so I would know that and act accordingly (slow up). But honestly, I thought I did know what was going on!

The gap between me and bridging teammate was over 30 seconds initially according to some spectators for those who have asked. She didn't make the initial move off the front with me as she had just won a prime and was tired. That prime was also what blew up the strongest rider on the other team and was also why I was attacking. Attack when we knew our competition was tired.

Her explanation for bridging was that we would expend less energy working together than we were both doing by being solo. Therefore, together we were less likely to burn up and get caught by the group. However, based on the power I was holding and length of time left in the race I was fairly confident I could stay away. My gap was also growing. Getting absorbed by the group wasn't even on my mind.

Another question...right or wrong let's say she successfully bridged up to me. How do we as teammates decide who wins? Does she allow me to win since I made the break or do we sprint it out, which would 99.9999% given it to her as she is a stronger sprinter than me? Or do we come to some other agreement?

TheKillerPenguin

Generally I would say it's whoever needs upgrade points the most that should take the win. If neither of you cares about that though sprint it out for sure, and whoever wins it is a win for both of you.

Heathpack 

And also @Doge

I am the first one to argue that women are different than men in cycling. But the difference is physiologic- differences in V02max, strength and hormonal mileu (which in turn influences response to training stimuli and also is the reason that aggressiveness for many women is learned rather than innate).

As far as race intelligence goes and strategic thinking, there is no reason that women can't learn those lessons every bit as well as men can. Perhaps less mentorship is available, an overall lesser volumes of racing peers to learn from, but a stupid move for a man is a stupid move for a woman.

However a real "cultural" difference: women may not realistically be able to just throw someone off the team for a boneheaded move, the team may not have the numbers to be able to afford to lose someone. And there may not be as many options for teams for a woman to join, should she decide to do so because of her teammates boneheaded move. I would guess that out of necessity, boneheaded stuff may be handled more gently on a woman's team, not because women are inherently gentler but because women need the few racing peers they have more so than men do.

But I honestly don't know, there is really no reason to be on a team with what I do. Good thing, since none are practically available to me.

PepeM

I agree with that. But other women in here (canuckbelle?) have mentioned before that women's racing is different that men's racing, in that there is a different set of 'unwritten rules' the peloton abides by. That's why I asked if maybe that was the case here, but I don't know that it is.

That's something I meant to comment on yesterday. OP should talk to her teammates, ask for their reasoning, explain hers, and ultimately figure out how the team wants to play such scenarios in the future. That is, if she likes the people in her team and want to stay with them, of course. Seems like we all agree that slowing down would have been the wrong tactical move, but if it keeps harmony within the team maybe it is worth it? I don't know.

dz_nuzz

Sounds like she was more worried about burning up. If you knew you had it in you to go the distance then that is exactly what you should do (and did!). For all you knew at that moment your teammate might have been on the verge of exploding and waiting for her would have been giving up time to the pack and IMO/E you should almost never give up time willingly.

That is a sticky situation. It should probably be verbal agreement. Agreement on who wins, or if you are going to fight each other for it. Either is valid as long as both parties are cool with the decision.

globecanvas

Definitely try to talk it out but IME really weird stuff can happen in this situation. You're both probably on the ragged edge anyway, both secretly want to win, "agreements" might be interpreted differently by each of you or just get ignored in the heat of the moment.

Heathpack 

IIRC, @valygrl then came in and commented that her racing experience was quite different and that she did not abide by these "unwritten rules" in her racing. So I'm not sure Canuckbelle is representative of "women's racing," maybe she is just one person with her experiences and her take on her experiences.

I agree that this sounds like an opportunity for a team conversation/learning moment. However the fact that @Poonjabby asked here rather than turning to a more experienced team member who could be expected to handle this reliably suggests to me that there might not be a knowledgable authority on the team. So it might be that the consensus is "we all agree to slow down". Which would be a mistake IMO.

If this women's team using tactics which will decrease their likelihood of success and that's happening due to a lack of understanding of tactics/strategy, then they should learn smart tactics or their racing experience is forever doomed to mediocrity. Maybe a mediocre team is fine is the team is therapeutic in some way- a tool to help battered women escape abusive relationships say. But if it's a normal team with the goal of doing well, they should be doing things right just like men should. If I had to agree to make racing mistakes for the sake of team harmony, I'd rather not be on a team.

valygrl

Woman racer here.

I don't think there should be some cultural difference in women's racing. I think some people, especially women, don't understand the nuances of racing strategy, and maybe also are not comfortable with straight-up competition, and that's can lead to them getting their feelings hurt and blaming that on other racers.

Example: my teamie was dropped from the lead group in a crit and was chasing with another dropped rider. They didn't have any hope of reattaching to the pack so they were basically racing each other for 10th or something like that. They traded pulls for the rest of the crit, and my teammate planned and successfully executed a strategy of getting the other woman to take the lead in the last half lap, and then outsprinted her. The other racer was angry and was heard complaining loudly in the parking lot to her friends that my teamie was unsportsmanlike for outsprinting her. WTF? Were they supposed to cross the line holding hands? it's racing, isn't the point to be over the line first?

For your situation, I do think there is a range of sophistication of people's race-thinking. The bridging teammate was not thinking clearly and maybe unaware of her own seeming personal motivation.

Since women's races and teams are generally a lot smaller than men's I do think we have fewer opportunities to experience and practice tactical race situations, which might lead to it taking a bit longer for women to gain sophistication with race tactics.

tl;dr - your teamie was wrong, you can explain why if you feel like using it as a learning moment for her and if you think she will be able to hear it, or just let it go.

valygrl

LOL, timing.

Doge

On the "women's racing is different" subject:

Ygduf

this happens in men's racing allllll the time.

mattm

That's a tough one.

I think the best option there is doing the "coming across the line holding hands while in the air." Another option is the "one rider cross the line first celebrating while the other also celebrates and points to the winner." thing. If one of you needs points, then that's the person that should take the W. If you're both cat 1s, then flip a coin.

What you don't want to is fight your teammate for the win - that's indicative of larger issues. I suspect that might have happened had she bridged up to you.

carpediemracing 

For me I'd want the one that wins less often to win. Or the less advantageous rider.

So in a 2 up sprint it'd be the non-sprinter that I think should win, unless that non sprinter always wins. Then the non sprinter can say, hey, you take it.

Ideally you two would slow to argue over who wants to get second, meaning both of you think the other teammate should have the win.

If neither rider wins often then that's tough. Me, personally, I care less about winning than racing as good a race as possible. I've purposely timed sprints so I lose to a teammate while still making it look good, and it was in a season where things were very hard for me off the bike. All I cared about in racing was being as fair and generous as possible to the others, and in that particular sprint I tried really hard to come in second by less than 6". I figured that would be a good challenge, to "sprint" and cross the line just short of beating my teammate, a guy who I've known and respected for 30 years. I went a bit fast, had to slow, and ended up losing by a bit too much. Plus the fact that I was laughing when I crossed the line sort of screwed up the seriousness of the sprint.

When I was in a 2 up sprint with a friendly rival at a different race (when winning was more important I guess), I purposely tried to lead out the sprint to make it a bit more even. He attacked me though, blew up, and after an initial jump (and disbelief) I basically soft pedaled to the win. Ended up he had a soft tire, so combined with a zero sprint he figured I'd easily win. I was thinking the other way, trying to even out the odds so it'd be very hard for me to win. As much as I wanted to win I wanted it to be as fair as possible, even if it meant I might lose the race.

Doge

Did you/do you split all the money equally between the 5 of you?

There is a different message and team "ethos" based on how the money works.

carpediemracing 

The real answer is that everyone needs to sit down and talk about potential scenarios like this and what the appropriate response is for some general situations.

1. Rival rider off the front. Who chases, how hard, or does one rider try to bridge vs drag the whole field? Then throw in "flat crit", "hilly RR", etc. If there's a stage race then you need to figure out who is the protected rider.

2. Teammate off the front. What should the other teammates in the field do? Again, throw in "flat crit", "hilly RR", and "second stage of whatever stage race".

3. Rival rider tired after prime. What should the teammates around the rival rider do?

I found it best to pair up with someone that was a bit different from me. This way my teammate would be the one trying to infiltrate the breaks during the race. I'd cover moves that tried to bridge, or moves that went away while my teammate was still recovering from an effort. Every move I marked would fizzle because the other riders know me as a sprinter.

Then at some point we'd agree to a switch from getting into breaks to setting up for the sprint. That was usually around 5 to go. Then my teammate would try to recover so he'd be able to help me out at 2 to go or, ideally, 1 to go. Because I was fine surfing the front of the field myself I'd usually just ask to get moved up between 5 and 2 laps to go. This way I'd be near the front at the bell.

What it comes down to is that the team as a whole needs to agree on how they want to race together.

There are people out there that simply cannot grasp the idea of teamwork. Someone said to me about one such rider "yeah, that rider is just an idiot". That's what it comes down to sometimes. If you're being supportive you can sort of let that rider loose as a joker of sorts, like "okay, the idiot's just going to try and do blah blah blah, how can we use that to help the team." Because the idiot will have no clue how their work may or may not benefit others so they'll race in blissful ignorance, hopefully helping the team while doing it. At least you'll have an idea of what they'll do whereas others may perceive the idiot's moves as "oh, they're doing team work".

Radish_legs

If people got kicked off teams for chasing teammates, there'd be a lot of people kicked off teams. I see it happen all the time.


There are times, as I understand it where it is appropriate to chase a break that contains a teammate. For example, a large break that contains a teammate who has little to no chance of winning the race, and you have the best sprinter in the race. The team may decide to chase.

Radish_legs

In these local crits, there are some teams where tactics are discussed and planned. Other teams don't do that. They let the race play out, keeping certain rules in mind. Other teams are going to have riders with disparate agendas looking out for their own results, and it's basically like the only thing that they have in common is the same laundry.


I have a friend on another team - he gets in the attempted breaks a lot, and it is very common for his teammates to chase. No cohesion.

mollusk

It is an 8 rider field with a team mate that doesn't know anything about bike racing. Why does this have more than a couple of posts?

The OP didn't do anything wrong and should look for a better team next season.

79pmooney

I haven't raced in decades so take this for what it is worth. You can only make your decisions based on what you know. You knew you were in front and in a strong position for the win. Your teammate was second. Her status otherwise unknown. Based on that,you drove for the win. Given that a win is worth more than all the rest of the places, you did the right thing.

Your teammate's gripe ought to be addressed to those who failed to inform you she was alone and that you should wait. The radio. The sign at the start finish. No radio? No coach with a signboard? Was your teammate aware these things were not available? If yes, she needs to just suck it up. The potential winner of a race does not slow for anything until she knows for sure that improves things. Racing 101. At least it was 40 years ago. (And 40 years ago in the United States, there were no radios and very few teams with signboards. Maybe a coach who yelled.

You won. Huge for the team. Your team also got both other podium spots. Cool. That your teammate wanted you to wait so she could take the top step? That's not your problem. Don't take it on.

Ben

carpediemracing 

I totally agree that if a break contains a teammate that has little/no chance of winning then a chase may be justified. Heck, I tell my teammates to chase like mad if I'm in a break because I'm going to get shelled even if I take zero pulls (and if I'm serious I take zero pulls in a break, because otherwise I'll get shelled).

However, if the teammate in question is solo, is pulling away from the others, then by definition the rider has an excellent chance of winning.

This is when the teammate launched the chase.

So in this case it was not the right thing to do.

globecanvas

But, justified only if the weakling in the break has self-awareness, which is rare.

Ygduf

weakling in the break with good teammates behind doesn't have to do any work in the break and has a much better chance at the end.

this precise situation annoyed the **** out of me in a race in which I made and made the break