The third World Cup DH of the year took place in Austria. Here are the results, race report and highlights vids from Loegang.
Another great race that the free highlights don’t do justice to
The coverage is honestly pretty good. Some runs/classes they're a bit short, but showing full runs of every ride would be LONG, dull and drag on for days.... So they condense it slightly and that does mean some riders kinda miss out on coverage.
Ric gets a lot of stick, but i'm honestly OK with him, i don't pay that much attention to the commentary anyway on DH or XC.
It was a bit weird in some ways that none of the later riders in mens elite set the world alight, it was the earlier riders
Seeing their skills/speed though is just amazing.
I know bashing the commentary is getting a bit old, but I watched the race last night and I noticed there was rarely more than a second where one of the three commentators wasn't speaking.
They were often just repeating each other, Ric was talking over everyone else and there was very little actual insight into the riding. And when there was, Ric talked over it.
Rob Warner has spoken several times about how he was told to STFU a lot of the time, and it made his commentary better.
Ric obviously didn't listen to those podcasts 😀
Sorry, I disagree weeksy - the low field numbers in the finals SHOULD mean that there's scope for virtually unbroken coverage between top & bottom, instead of which they (at Legoland) skipped a big section at the top seemingly just to allow time for us to see those shit promo trailers of the pouting rider & their bike. Kack.
Also Ric (and in fairness, nobody else "corrected" him) was beside himself every time the 3rd sector times came out and riders had made up around 8 tenths, without it clicking that this was Goldstone predicta\bly dropping time on the motorway
There's no way I'd pay for this as things stand
"none of the later riders in mens elite set the world alight, it was the earlier riders"
I think the wind changed
I know bashing the commentary is getting a bit old, but I watched the race last night and I noticed there was rarely more than a second where one of the three commentators wasn't speaking.
They were often just repeating each other, Ric was talking over everyone else and there was very little actual insight into the riding. And when there was, Ric talked over it.
Rob Warner has spoken several times about how he was told to STFU a lot of the time, and it made his commentary better.
Ric obviously didn't listen to those podcasts 😀
As much as i loved Warners passion, did he really bring more than just shouting, screaming and hollering at times ? Ric is building up his knowledge but it would arguably be useful to wander round the pits more and chat to teams, mechanics and staff to get a bit 'more'.... but Warner made all the same mistakes of
"oh this looks like a great run"..... "he's 2s back"... Well yeah, it can happen... seems to happen a lot lol. But i don't know what people actually want in a commentator that Ric isn't giving them. "he's flapping round like a dinosaur in a tub of jelly" or whatever may well be amusing, but it's not really in depth commentary.
Sitting watching Discovery at the moment with Carlton and the others, whilst they want to make Mrs Weeksy SCREAM with their pronunciation of names, they have immense knowledge of riders, racers, history etc... but they've been there and done it for years and years.
Sorry, I disagree weeksy - the low field numbers in the finals SHOULD mean that there's scope for virtually unbroken coverage between top & bottom,
30 riders with 5 mins on a run each, 150 mins....
15 riders with 5 mins each 75 mins....
Then throw in the juniors both male and female (150-200mins) and the fact you need some intro, some build up, you're then into 4-5 hours of coverage. Plus obviously after rider 1 if you want the last sets of riders to be 'live' then you have to cut down the other riders, otherwise if you're showing full runs, the event has been over for 2.5 hours by the time you get to the last rider in the show compared to what's actually happening in real-time.
As much as i loved Warners passion, did he really bring more than just shouting, screaming and hollering at times
I thought Rob had got a bit mechanical in the couple of years before WB took over, but yes he showed a deep knowledge of the sport and a racer's understanding of what was happening on screen.
He and Claudio/Eliot/whoever were still prone to misinterpreting the splits sometimes (like when the current leader had had a bad first sector and they'd get excited that following riders were way up) but listening to Rob commentating the Crankworx races or Hardline on RBTV - he's light years ahead of Ric & co.
30 riders with 5 mins on a run each, 150 mins....
Mens race was under/around 3 minutes per run and, regardless, if the coverage is live then it's going to have to be as long as it takes - just stop with the filler and show the runs. Highlights, yeah, they can chop as they see fit (but still would be better if they had coverage of the entire run to work from - Goldstone largely won it at 1&2, it seems, but we barely saw anyone riding all that bit other than Bruni & Goldstone (as I remember it). That shows that full coverage WAS possible and so the cutting was an editorial choice
Great racing - I'd have preferred for it to have been wet, as that would have made the lower section much more unpredictable, but it was still good to watch. I'm ambivalent about the commentary - mostly it's ok, but I found it pretty annoying for the first time this weekend. Endlessly repeating "if there's one rider who knows how to deal (whatever technical feature they're showing) with it's this guy/girl" - I think Josh must have used that phrase about 6 times. And who in their right mind in WBD thought bringing a supercross guy into the commentary booth, and then basically interviewing him whilst we're watching multiple elite riders on their race runs was a good idea? That was really, really odd.
Oh, and then Ric telling us, helpfully, that "so and so is on a run here".
Yes, we know. We're watching them right now. On a race run.
I much prefer the smaller field & not having all of every run broadcast, it gets a bit samey. I also like that they tend to cut out a lot of the run when someone has crashed - So long as they show the jumps the riders inevitably style up when they are already out the running for big points.
Ref the 3rd sector split - I think he well knows how it works, but is trying to build excitement around runs that regular viewers already know are off the pace and very unlikely to make the top 3.
I much prefer the smaller field & not having all of every run broadcast, it gets a bit samey.
I like the smaller field. You feel that any one of those 30 men and 15 women could plausibly win. Thats why I'm sitting and watching the whole thing.
Back in the 60 and 80 rider days, I definitely fast forwarded the earlier ones.
The "downside" of this, is that some people miss the cut off. And I'm all for that TBH. Being able to say that the finals is so elite that former world champion X or previous winner Y didn't even make it in, is what makes it elite.
However I would like to see he same coverage of every rider. Scaredypants says we only saw Loic and Jackson in the top section - why couldn't we see everyone? If there was no camera on something that turned out to be a key section then thats a bit crap but understandable. But there clearly was a camera there, so who gets to decide who we see do it and who we skip? Watching Jackson float over a tech section looks cool but is made far more impressive in seeing it was faster than the 10 previous attempts.
If there is only time to show 2 minutes of every run I want to see the same 2 minutes from everyone.
Right now if you are a "lesser" rider and qualify just ahead or behind Loic, Jackson, Amaury, Vali Gracie or Tahnee; you are getting seriously screwed out of your screen time by the editors.
The commentary team seemed completely oblivious to the fact that something caused the last few riders down the hill to go 3 seconds slower than earlier riders. Apparently it's entirely normal for Pierron and Vergier to be outside the top 15.
And who in their right mind in WBD thought bringing a supercross guy into the commentary booth, and then basically interviewing him whilst we're watching multiple elite riders on their race runs was a good idea? That was really, really odd.
The racing at the moment is incredible. The coverage is terrible. If I was paying I'd be royally pissed off. As it is I'm only mildly pissed off.
As an aside, with Q1 and Q2 qualifying, it would make more sense if the start order was World Championship style, ie the start order is determined by your position in the overall. That way you don't end up with Bruni and Goldstone racing a completely different race to Pierron and Vergier.
The commentary team seemed completely oblivious to the fact that something caused the last few riders down the hill to go 3 seconds slower than earlier riders. Apparently it's entirely normal for Pierron and Vergier to be outside the top 15.
And who in their right mind in WBD thought bringing a supercross guy into the commentary booth, and then basically interviewing him whilst we're watching multiple elite riders on their race runs was a good idea? That was really, really odd.
The racing at the moment is incredible. The coverage is terrible. If I was paying I'd be royally pissed off. As it is I'm only mildly pissed off.
As an aside, with Q1 and Q2 qualifying, it would make more sense if the start order was World Championship style, ie the start order is determined by your position in the overall. That way you don't end up with Bruni and Goldstone racing a completely different race to Pierron and Vergier.
That's the best thing about DH for me, the unknown, the conditions changing, sometimes it work in your favour as it rains before/during/after your run. When you're at the bottom and your rider is safely down with a good time, the the heavens open, awesome. But the same in reverse a lot recently when the boy is off late as he's ranked high, then he's the one who's getting the rain, it gets wetter, wetter. It doesn't always work in your favour, but it's part of the game.
I bottled it and paid the subscription, yes I hate myself but I couldn't resist and hopelessly tried to justify paying an enormous corporate entity that is WB because we'll probably watch a couple of other sports including winter sports that used to be on Eurosport for free in winter.
I am one of those who definitely mourn the lack of Redbull influence and hate the corporate schmaltz and dumbing down of the broadcast, but the racing is at least exciting; for the time being at least. Until I get sick of missing seeing my favourite riders on the shrunken podium, because they ran over a pebble that the others didn't.
Not really sure why we had some Moto guy doing commentary, although turns out Mullaly organised it. I don't know why it annoys me so much, maybe the obviousness of it, the desperation to be connected with Moto.
Looking forward to Val di Sole though, maybe we'll get another surprise commentator, perhaps from F1.
One thing that does strike me is that we're going to see a lot more injuries. With riders having to often go flat out for 3 laps rather than just the one, there's a lot more chance to bin it and with everyone having ot go so damn fast on the faster tracks it's going to get messy.
The commentary team seemed completely oblivious to the fact that something caused the last few riders down the hill to go 3 seconds slower than earlier riders. Apparently it's entirely normal for Pierron and Vergier to be outside the top 15.
The racing at the moment is incredible. The coverage is terrible. If I was paying I'd be royally pissed off. As it is I'm only mildly pissed off.
As an aside, with Q1 and Q2 qualifying, it would make more sense if the start order was World Championship style, ie the start order is determined by your position in the overall. That way you don't end up with Bruni and Goldstone racing a completely different race to Pierron and Vergier.
Not sure I follow, the wind might have dropped a bit but both were still faster in the motorway section than Jackson. Certainly not 'a completely different race'.
Loris came 15th and was 3sec off the winning time. In both the previous rounds he was further behind than that even though he ended up 7th both times. This season everyone of the overall top 5 has had at least 1 result outside the top 10. It happens, and when times are this tight it happens more frequently.
WynTV suggested the earlier riders (inc. Jackson & Loic) had a tailwind at the top.
I suspect Jackson would have won anyway, but I was hoping to see Amaury make a decent challenge for the overall this year - and this scuppers that a bit. I know, I know, that's racing though.
All the chat about changing the start order to points ranking is silly and knee-jerk IMO.
WynTV suggested the earlier riders (inc. Jackson & Loic) had a tailwind at the top.
I suspect Jackson would have won anyway, but I was hoping to see Amaury make a decent challenge for the overall this year - and this scuppers that a bit. I know, I know, that's racing though.
All the chat about changing the start order to points ranking is silly and knee-jerk IMO.
That's a bit strange. You explain the reason why starting based on overall position is a good idea and then say to do so would be silly and knee-jerk.
It's impossible to know if Vergier and Pierron were actually just going slow or if they were the victim of changing conditions.
There are two considerations in a WC race. There's the event winner which is mostly decided based on who is fastest but can be decided based on changing conditions. Then there's the overall winner of the season. For that you want the people fighting for places to have the most similar conditions to their nearest rivals.
Q1 and Q2 qualifying has jumbled up the start order anyway. It's no longer the fastest time goes last. Fast riders are now getting early start times due to an issue in Q1.
Q1 and Q2 and the vastly reduced field means that start order is far less of a consideration than it was. In which case it makes more sense for me for the folk currently in contention for the overall to be racing against each other in the closest track conditions possible.
I don't think it's a knee jerk reaction. The rules for racing have changed massively and after an overhaul it's often worth looking at things with a fresh eye to see if things can be improved.
WynTV suggested the earlier riders (inc. Jackson & Loic) had a tailwind at the top.
I suspect Jackson would have won anyway, but I was hoping to see Amaury make a decent challenge for the overall this year - and this scuppers that a bit. I know, I know, that's racing though.
All the chat about changing the start order to points ranking is silly and knee-jerk IMO.
That's a bit strange. You explain the reason why starting based on overall position is a good idea and then say to do so would be silly and knee-jerk.
It's impossible to know if Vergier and Pierron were actually just going slow or if they were the victim of changing conditions.
There are two considerations in a WC race. There's the event winner which is mostly decided based on who is fastest but can be decided based on changing conditions. Then there's the overall winner of the season. For that you want the people fighting for places to have the most similar conditions to their nearest rivals.
Q1 and Q2 qualifying has jumbled up the start order anyway. It's no longer the fastest time goes last. Fast riders are now getting early start times due to an issue in Q1.
Q1 and Q2 and the vastly reduced field means that start order is far less of a consideration than it was. In which case it makes more sense for me for the folk currently in contention for the overall to be racing against each other in the closest track conditions possible.
I don't think it's a knee jerk reaction. The rules for racing have changed massively and after an overhaul it's often worth looking at things with a fresh eye to see if things can be improved.
Nah, it's the luck of the draw. Fairness and equality don't come into it. If conditions change it can be an advantage and a disadvantage.
Personally I’m in favour of the current, any given Sunday approach.
This year, the situation has been the same for Pierron as it has for Platt and Pontviane (two non-elite team riders who have made finals, and happen to start with P).
Need to go full beans in Q1, need to go again in q2 if they fail. No protection, no getting special treatment. The fairest possible way at finding who is fastest on a given track
No benefit whatsoever to being ranked higher/based on previous races or years results. As soon as you start fiddling the start order to make it ‘fair’ someone is bound to lose out and it’s probably the lower ranked rider if you average it out over the season.
only suggestion I have to fix the weather is cut gaps to 30 seconds, then piece it together into a delayed broadcast after the fact. Elite men get through in 15 minutes so minimal chance of a weather change. I guess this ruins it for the in person finish corale spectators though. And someone will spoil the result online before you can watch it…
As soon as you start fiddling the start order to make it ‘fair’ someone is bound to lose out and it’s probably the lower ranked rider if you average it out over the season.
Exactly.
Or conversely, the rain comes in for the top 10 and the points leaders all miss out.
The new system is working pretty well IMO and the Q1/Q2 thing is clearly better than the old protection system, especially with such a stacked field now.
It's not a question of fair. Like I said, you have to separate out the individual event result from the overall competition.
For the individual event it's luck of the draw. Conditions can either come to you or go away from you.
However, with the overall it makes sense to me to have people who are near each other in points to be racing in similar conditions. Many times it's not going to be a factor but when it is a factor I would say the track or the conditions are more likely to deteriorate rather than improve.
Like I said, with Q1 and Q2, the outcome of qualifying has changed. If you remember they introduced points for qualifying precisely because some riders were gaming the system in order to give themselves an earlier start time. Most obvious example that comes to mind being Matti Lehikoinen in Champery in 2007 (no one remembers he won that race because of Sam Hill's run in the rain).
With the new format qualifying has become more of a binary thing, rather than determining your start time amongst 80 other riders. You either qualify or you don't.
To me, the start order for an individual race is not as important as it used to be, therefore ensuring that the people who are competing against each other in the overall have as similar conditions as possible should take a higher priority.
It doesn't stop you getting random winners if the heavens open mid race. However, it would ensure that Bruni wins by default if he just happens to have a bad qualifying.
It's not a question of fair. Like I said, you have to separate out the individual event result from the overall competition.
Why ? If someone doesn't qualify in Q1 then they get another go, that's already enough to give them a second chance, why should they then get another chance to be near their rivals. What happens if they have a crap Q1, then go through in Q2 and get seeded as you say and put it in first.... but would have not been first if unseeded, that's then not fair on the others for the overall, but is more fair for that particular person.
As always you're putting your own opinion over as gospel, i don't know if you actually realise it when writing but it's all a bit "this is my opinion and i'm right"... Whereas others are perfectly entitled to have their opinion too.
Most WC racers voted for LCQ and removal of protected status, but you think they're all wrong 😀
As always you're putting your own opinion over as gospel, i don't know if you actually realise it when writing but it's all a bit "this is my opinion and i'm right"... Whereas others are perfectly entitled to have their opinion too.
If you actually read what I'm saying, I'm suggesting an alternative. Not saying this is the way it must be.
The problem I have is that people seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying. You in particular seem especially keen to misinterpret me in order for me to be 'wrong'. Perhaps you should look at your own style of posting?
To clarify. There would still be no protected status. If the series leader fails to qualify in Q2 then they don't race.
Q1 Q2 has changed the nature of qualifying. I think it's worth looking at what the purpose is and what we are trying to achieve rather than just going with the way it's always been.
Like I said, a track is more likely to deteriorate rapidly than improve rapidly. More often it is riders further up the start order (riders who start earlier in the day) who are going to benefit.
Therefore if you have riders further down the overall starting earlier it increases the chances of a 'freak' result. Freak results are cool but not so much so when they end up affecting the overall standings. Possibly this is what we saw at the weekend. We'll never know as the series leaders start times were so far removed from each other.
Anyway, something to consider but only if you consider what I am actually saying rather than what you have decided I have said in order to make me 'wrong'.
As always you're putting your own opinion over as gospel, i don't know if you actually realise it when writing but it's all a bit "this is my opinion and i'm right"... Whereas others are perfectly entitled to have their opinion too.
If you actually read what I'm saying, I'm suggesting an alternative. Not saying this is the way it must be.
The problem I have is that people seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying. You in particular seem especially keen to misinterpret me in order for me to be 'wrong'. Perhaps you should look at your own style of posting?
To clarify. There would still be no protected status. If the series leader fails to qualify in Q2 then they don't race.
Q1 Q2 has changed the nature of qualifying. I think it's worth looking at what the purpose is and what we are trying to achieve rather than just going with the way it's always been.
Like I said, a track is more likely to deteriorate rapidly than improve rapidly. More often it is riders further up the start order (riders who start earlier in the day) who are going to benefit.
Therefore if you have riders further down the overall starting earlier it increases the chances of a 'freak' result. Freak results are cool but not so much so when they end up affecting the overall standings. Possibly this is what we saw at the weekend. We'll never know as the series leaders start times were so far removed from each other.
Anyway, something to consider but only if you consider what I am actually saying rather than what you have decided I have said in order to make me 'wrong'.
But it's not like they can fudge it so they can get a Q2 start as that's WAY too risky, you wouldn't put in a crap Q1 run if you could help it just to give yourself a chance at a decent Q2, the risk is too high.
I don't see what you're trying to achieve in honesty, how are you deciding which rider goes where in Finals then, lets say Vergier, Bruni and Jackson all end up in Q2, then make it through, how do you decide where to put them.
Lets say you put them in after say Ronan, Luke MS, Thirion because they're higher 'ranked' than those, how is that fair on them ? How do you decide which of them goes in what order ?
Personally i think it works well. It's pretty fair that if you don't make Q1, you shouldn't get thrown in the mix with the Q1s and should be down out of sequence.
In the same way as it may have favoured the Q2 guys this weekend (if the wind changed) next race it could be the exact opposite with the wind, or a drying track and the later runners get a drier/better track... it's just the luck of the draw.
We've seen it at Nationals where someone DNfs in seeding which puts them #1 off the hill for race runs, then just as they're heading off the rain starts.... They get a 99% good track, the rest of their cat gets a rubbish track as it's rained more and more... But that's the thing, everyone knows this can or may happen and it's just how it is.
I don't see what you're trying to achieve in honesty, how are you deciding which rider goes where in Finals then, lets say Vergier, Bruni and Jackson all end up in Q2, then make it through, how do you decide where to put them.
Like I said, qualifying is now more of a binary thing. You either qualify or you don't. It's not to decide the start order amongst 80 people anymore.
Therefore, if the start order is less important, why not make it so that it ensures you always see the top 5 guys in the overall racing in more or less the same conditions.
For example, can we say definitively that Bruni and Goldstone just out-rode Vergier and Peirron or was it because of the conditions?
For me the end of the race yesterday was a bit of a damp squib. You could see none of the last 5-10 riders down the hill were going to be anywhere near Bruni and Goldstone.
However, if it had been based on WC standings then we might have seen Henri Kiefer win his first WC while Bruni, Goldstone, Pierron, and Vergier were just trying to fight against each other for overall points.
Like I said, I think Q1Q2 is a vast improvement but that doesn't mean there might be options to improve it further.
You could see none of the last 5-10 riders down the hill were going to be anywhere near Bruni and Goldstone.
Is it not entirely possible that Bruni and Goldstone being 2 of the best riders on the planet both just put together fast runs ?
https://www.pinkbike.com/news/race-analysis-from-the-2025-leogang-dh-world-cup.html
Looking at the analysis, Bruni was only quick in the last half... If the wind was better for him at the top, then surely he'd have been quicker in Sector 1/2.
Jackson was flying in Sector 1/2 and a donkey in 3/4
Is it not entirely possible that Bruni and Goldstone being 2 of the best riders on the planet both just put together fast runs ?
Of course. The problem is, because there was so much time passed between their runs and Pierron and Vergier's runs (who are also 2 of the best riders on the planet), we can't know if it was because they were the two best riders on the day or if they were amongst the 4 best riders on the day but just got the right conditions.
Again, it's not a fairness question. DH is always going to have an element of luck. To me it just makes sense if you're going to have an overall competition then why not have the guys close to each other in the overall starting in close proximity to each other.
Especially now that qualifying has become much more about making the cut off, rather than a way of determining the start order.
FWIW, IMHO - Ric is really not great, that Josh fella was excellent, and Neko is very good in a 'straight-man from the Tango orange advert' kinda way.
I paid for GCN last year, this year I got the discovery+ subs free as an add on to my phone contract. Had no idea it was going to include the DH at the time, and it includes some good rugby and other sports.
Watching it live is absolutely gripping, breathtaking, love it. Leogang was superb, new Q format and limited number of riders for main race makes great TV and coverage.
Is it not entirely possible that Bruni and Goldstone being 2 of the best riders on the planet both just put together fast runs ?
Of course. The problem is, because there was so much time passed between their runs and Pierron and Vergier's runs (who are also 2 of the best riders on the planet), we can't know if it was because they were the two best riders on the day or if they were amongst the 4 best riders on the day but just got the right conditions.
Again, it's not a fairness question. DH is always going to have an element of luck. To me it just makes sense if you're going to have an overall competition then why not have the guys close to each other in the overall starting in close proximity to each other.
Especially now that qualifying has become much more about making the cut off, rather than a way of determining the start order.
I don't hate the idea that overall ranking determines start order in the finals - but I don't think the data backs up your reasoning.
Vergier finished outside the top 10 in the last 5 world cups of 2024 (and was 19th a Leogang) and Pierron had a 10th, 13th (also Leogang) & 15th.
Vergier finished outside the top 10 in the last 5 world cups of 2024 (and was 19th a Leogang) and Pierron had a 10th, 13th (also Leogang) & 15th.
Definitely there could be multiple explanations for the results. However, that's why I think if it's possible the variables should be reduced as much as possible to reduce the discussions of, 'Was it wind? Did a berm blow out? etc'
Ultimately it was a bit of a strange weekend where the riders who qualified 11th, 14th, and 16th finished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd while the riders who qualified 1st, 2nd, and 3rd finished 15th, 17th, and 18th.
This could be explained by any number of factors but we are left wondering just how much conditions changed. Because of this result Pierron lost the overall lead while Vergier and Williams are now around 300 points behind Bruni.
double post
Vergier finished outside the top 10 in the last 5 world cups of 2024 (and was 19th a Leogang) and Pierron had a 10th, 13th (also Leogang) & 15th.
Definitely there could be multiple explanations for the results. However, that's why I think if it's possible the variables should be reduced as much as possible to reduce the discussions of, 'Was it wind? Did a berm blow out? etc'
Ultimately it was a bit of a strange weekend where the riders who qualified 11th, 14th, and 16th finished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd while the riders who qualified 1st, 2nd, and 3rd finished 15th, 17th, and 18th.
This could be explained by any number of factors but we are left wondering just how much conditions changed. Because of this result Pierron lost the overall lead while Vergier and Williams are now around 300 points behind Bruni.
Yes, but.... i don't see that as a problem. Just a circumstance that may have happened. The conditions changing isn't a bad thing, it's just a thing.
some you win, some you lose.
Look at the race where some of them got SNOW at the top and some never.. no-one was saying that the rider order should be different then, but that seems to be because the fastest qualifiers got the best runs. However some at the start of the session got snow, some never, then it cleared up at the end... so how's that fair on the ones who got the snow ? Answer is, it's not... but who says it has to be fair.. it's just racing 🙂
@brucewee It seems to me that the previous protected status kept the top folks in the points running and reinforced their top folks status, and so making it harder for up and comings. They have deliberately got rid of protected and we see previous safe bet point makers missing out. Intentionally. And people are loving that change. And you are proposing a new system to keep the top folks top, a sort of new protection. That is why I think your proposal is bad.
I don't hate the idea that overall ranking determines start order in the finals
They tried it for a while a few years ago, and it was awful.
If memory serves, Bulldog* had gone fastest in quali, but was forced to start earlier - and everyone got rightly upset.
(*might have been a different rider)
"proposal is bad" is a bit of a bad phrasing, sorry.
That is why I cannot support you proposal 😆
Again, not suggesting we go back to having protected riders. If Bruni crashes out of Q2 he doesn't start the main race.
Another thing I said earlier, qualis have fundamentally changed. It's no longer to determine the start order of 80 riders. It's more of a binary cut off where you make it or you don't. Arguably anyone who qualifies for the finals is capable of getting on the podium if the stars align.
If the nature of qualifying has fundamentally changed I think it's worth looking at it with fresh eyes and figure out what we are trying to achieve and if it is still suits it's purpose.
imo if anyone can potentially win then the start order is less important. Therefore maybe the focus should shift to ensuring the people who are close to each other in the overall are racing against each other in the most similar conditions possible.
There probably are downsides we haven't considered yet.
Vergier finished outside the top 10 in the last 5 world cups of 2024 (and was 19th a Leogang) and Pierron had a 10th, 13th (also Leogang) & 15th.
Definitely there could be multiple explanations for the results. However, that's why I think if it's possible the variables should be reduced as much as possible to reduce the discussions of, 'Was it wind? Did a berm blow out? etc'
Ultimately it was a bit of a strange weekend where the riders who qualified 11th, 14th, and 16th finished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd while the riders who qualified 1st, 2nd, and 3rd finished 15th, 17th, and 18th.
This could be explained by any number of factors but we are left wondering just how much conditions changed. Because of this result Pierron lost the overall lead while Vergier and Williams are now around 300 points behind Bruni.
I don't think 'we' are left wondering anything... this week was about as consistent conditions as I've seen in recent years, the weather stayed broadly the same & the course held up well on most places. Loudenville blew out everywhere but Pierron was last run & finished 2nd.... Compare that with the others you've picked up on:
Vergier (3rd quali) came 7th and Bruni (2nd quali) came 15th (and over 5s back, which is a much bigger difference than the gap between these riders in Leogang) so having these 3 next to each other in the start list still resulted in a big spread of finishing places, and a bigger spread in time.
Courses change and develop over time, but this format at least means the fastest riders on the weekend are getting the most exposure, regardless of their past performance, which is as it should be in my opinion. It produces great racing and more often than not results in a great build up to the final runs.
I'd be looking at the relatively 'straightforward' nature of the track and the resulting very tight times before thinking about the start list order.
I don't think 'we' are left wondering anything... this week was about as consistent conditions as I've seen in recent years, the weather stayed broadly the same & the course held up well on most places.
Well, there was definitely something going on with the wind. There was also something happened with one of the berms (I think Gwin exploded it). That's just what we know about.
How much effect it had we are just left to wonder about.
As soon as you start fiddling the start order to make it ‘fair’ someone is bound to lose out and it’s probably the lower ranked rider if you average it out over the season
I'd argue (and I believe Bruce is too) that the lower ranked rider would broadly benefit from the earlier start (no blown-out course, at least)
FWIW I quite like the suggestion
(question (I honestly don't know): do the Q2 riders start according to their time and slotted into the other 10 or do they start in 15th to 11th? I'd suggest that, if Bruce's rule doesn't apply, they should run 15th to 11th)
As soon as you start fiddling the start order to make it ‘fair’ someone is bound to lose out and it’s probably the lower ranked rider if you average it out over the season
I'd argue (and I believe Bruce is too) that the lower ranked rider would broadly benefit from the earlier start (no blown-out course, at least)
FWIW I quite like the suggestion
(question (I honestly don't know): do the Q2 riders start according to their time and slotted into the other 10 or do they start in 15th to 11th? I'd suggest that, if Bruce's rule doesn't apply, they should run 15th to 11th)
Again, it's not really demonstrated by the results. Course can get better over time as well as worse.
Q1 = 11-30
Q2 - 1-10
So the latest start you can get from Q2 is the 10th start time. The slowest in Q1 then gets the 11th start time.
The problem i see is, if you look at race 1, how do you decide who's 'worthy' of being in the 'close to the last ones down'. You could argue Jackson by default, but is that fair on people like Rude, Hartenstern, even people like O'Callaghan, how do they not match up, each and every one of those could hit the podium. Troy in 29th, Lachie, i could throw in a case for either of those. The sport is what it is and any one of the top 30 could easily hit the top 5...
Again, it's not really demonstrated by the results. Course can get better over time as well as worse.
Sure. But if we are talking about a sudden change (ie, sudden downpour or berm blowout) then a deterioration is far more likely than an improvement.
Wind can obviously go either way, but for everything else (like the track drying out or perhaps a new line becoming feasible) it's going to be something that happens over many runs.
I never really understood before why World Champs start order is determined by World Cup standing rather than qualifying time but I guess it's an acknowledgment that the World Cup standings are a good proxy for a rider's likelihood to win. For a high stakes one off race you wouldn't want to risk it being decided based on who had the worst qualifying day.
The more I think about it the more I'm struggling to see any advantages of the start order being time based (well, not entirely time based as Q1Q2 is going to jumble the order up a bit).
The sport is what it is and any one of the top 30 could easily hit the top 5...
That's exactly my point. It's no longer 80 riders the majority of whom have basically no chance of getting on the podium. With 30 riders anyone could podium.
Therefore why not ensure the top guys in the overall are racing in the most similar conditions possible?
The problem i see is, if you look at race 1, how do you decide who's 'worthy' of being in the 'close to the last ones down'.
Either base it on last years results for the first race or just go by qualifying time for the first race?
OK, maybe we can look at this in a different way. What are the advantages of basing the start order on quali time* other than it's just the way it's always been done?
*Or rather, partially basing the start order on quali times as the Q1Q2 format means it's not entirely based on quali time.
I honestly can't comprehend your point... they ARE... if they've made finals there's only 60 mins between the first/last, maybe 90 mins. How close do you want it ?
What happens if it rains half way through that and your guy who was 3rd down has been put to 3rd last (Bruni for example) and now loses all chance of the win because you've move him 26 places further up the order because of his rank.
I don't see how your system is any better honestly.
What happens if it rains half way through that and your guy who was 3rd down has been put to 3rd last (Bruni for example) and now loses all chance of the win because you've move him 26 places further up the order because of his rank.
I'm not sure I understand here. You're saying that Bruni missed out on Q1 for some reason and came third last in Q2 so he's third rider down the mountain?
IF it rained half way through then it would be a very boring second half of the race because Bruni is obviously going to win (and he'l massively extend his lead in the overall).
If Bruni qualified 3rd last for whatever reason but was still last one down the mountain then he wouldn't win but he'd be in the same boat as Pierron, Williams, Vergier, etc. Whoever was fastest before the rain came down would most likely win.
Maybe we're talking about completely different things here because now I don't really understand what you're saying.
What happens if it rains half way through that and your guy who was 3rd down has been put to 3rd last (Bruni for example) and now loses all chance of the win because you've move him 26 places further up the order because of his rank.
I'm not sure I understand here. You're saying that Bruni missed out on Q1 for some reason and came third last in Q2 so he's third rider down the mountain?
IF it rained half way through then it would be a very boring second half of the race because Bruni is obviously going to win (and he'l massively extend his lead in the overall).
If Bruni qualified 3rd last for whatever reason but was still last one down the mountain then he wouldn't win but he'd be in the same boat as Pierron, Williams, Vergier, etc. Whoever was fastest before the rain came down would most likely win.
Maybe we're talking about completely different things here because now I don't really understand what you're saying.
You almost got it..
In your scenario, he never came down 3rd... he came down 2nd last or even last due to being ranked #1... So he didn't get the win and actually finished 17th as loads got dry conditions.
He's going to be proper unhappy about that surely ?
In your scenario, he never came down 3rd... he came down 2nd last or even last due to being ranked #1... So he didn't get the win and actually finished 17th as loads got dry conditions.
He's going to be proper unhappy about that surely ?
Yes, but as you say, it's just racing.
I'd imagine Pierron, Vergier, and Williams (who in this hypothetical scenario qualified 1st, 2nd, and 3rd) would be more pissed off if Bruni won and extended his series lead just because he crashed in Q1 and it pissed down halfway through the race.
I'd rather see a relatively unknown rider get their first win with the series leaders finishing mid pack. Especially if it didn't affect the overall.
