Would like to understand bike racing tactics

[NHAero]

I never followed bike racing but have been enjoying doing so in the past year or two. I don't understand the concept of a rider “bringing him back” when a rider attacks. Why does having someone following the attacker affect their ride?

[tv_vt]

Originally Posted by NHAero

I never followed bike racing but have been enjoying doing so in the past year or two. I don't understand the concept of a rider “bringing him back” when a rider attacks. Why does having someone following the attacker affect their ride?

Depends on who the second rider is. If a teammate of the attacking rider, they can work together. That's definitely not a case of bringing the rider back.

But if it's one of the favorites, or one of his teammates, he can just sit on the wheel of the attacking rider, just drafting and not pulling, and the attacker is fairly neutralized. He/she won't work hard to help someone on another team get way out in front if that person isn't sharing in any of the workload.

It's not so much bringing them back as neutralizing the attack. It's really all about the role of drafting and how much harder the person in front has to work compared to the riders behind them.

[bewheels]

Originally Posted by NHAero

I never followed bike racing but have been enjoying doing so in the past year or two. I don't understand the concept of a rider “bringing him back” when a rider attacks. Why does having someone following the attacker affect their ride?

When one rider attacks, and one or more riders chase the attacking rider down, they are "bringing back" the attacking rider.

[HenryA]

“Bringing him back” is what happens when the lone rider is not joined by others who might then constitute a “break”. And as already noted, it might be just a wet blanket because its not the right guy or right time.

[GregL]

Another tactic is to work with teammates to cover and counter attacks. One teammate launches an attack. When a rider from a rival team tries to chase down the attack, a teammate jumps on the wheel of the chaser and refuses to pull through. If the original attacker is strong enough, they can get away for the win. If the chaser catches the original attacker, the teammate counterattacks, potentially breaking away. It’s not only enjoyable to watch in pro racing, it’s fun to execute in amateur racing. A teammate and I executed this strategy at last year’s state criterium championship and came away with gold and bronze medals.

Greg

[edgerat]

I'd like to understand why when there is a chasing group and they decide not to pull for each other and then get gobbled up by the pelo again. I see this a lot in the women's tour, makes me nuts.

[Philster]

It’s all about looking forward to what you think will happen at the finish.

If you have someone sitting on and not working, when you get to the line, you lose. If you end up getting caught by the group after all that work, you lose. Better to cut your losses and see what happens.

If you’re in a group of faster finishers, you don’t want to help them get to the line ahead of the group. This is especially true if you have a fast team mate behind, but maybe you just go back, recover and see what happens.

Not sure about men’s versus women’s tactics, but in last year’s women’s Roubaix, Jackson brow beat the group to get her to the line and then beat them. I would have ignored her.

[carpediemracing]

Originally Posted by NHAero

I never followed bike racing but have been enjoying doing so in the past year or two. I don't understand the concept of a rider “bringing him back” when a rider attacks. Why does having someone following the attacker affect their ride?

It really doesn't affect the attacker's ride per se. What it does is it affects the attacker's chances of success.

Generally speaking, every team's goal is to maximize their results with the riders they have. So, for example, if a team Sprinter Team has a really good sprinter but not much else, they will be motivated to keep the group together and try and make it come down to a sprint.

On the other hand, if a team does NOT have a sprinter, it behooves them to try and get a break going, to keep the sprinter/s out of contention.

In your example, if the team without the sprinter helps form a break, Sprinter Team will want to "bring them back", aka chase them down.

If the Sprinter Team has a team member in the break, that teammate will generally refuse to pull. The thought is that everyone knows the Sprinter Team wants the break to fail, so the Sprinter Team is expected to put a rider in the break (and NOT pull). If the break succeeds, the Sprinter Team rider in the break is expected to win the race (and has a good chance of doing so because they sat in the draft the entire race).

In the pack, Sprinter Team might defer from chasing "because we have a rider in the break". So now not only do they have a joker in the break, they're actually drafting in the field as well. A great situation for Sprinter Team.

This sort of situation will encourage the other break members to either not work or to attack the break. The Sprinter Team rider will only follow wheels so it's really, really hard to get rid of them. Usually such breaks will fail because the other riders will give up - why work hard to make the break work only to have the Sprinter Team rider beat you at the line?

A break with no Sprinter Team riders in it will have a better chance at succeeding. In addition, if Sprinter Team doesn't get a rider in the break, everyone will look at them to chase because they're the team with the sprinter.

Often a strong sprinter team will accept the inevitable and simply ride a decent tempo at the front of the field, letting some weaker riders break away, and then chase them down before the finish.

A good sprinter's team will be able to time the chase to perfection, catching the break in the last couple km of an hours long race.

The exciting stuff happens when the break is unexpectedly strong, or the chasing teams miscalculate something (like suddenly there's a super strong tailwind, so the break is going faster than expected).

Here is a race that I've watched over and over, the 1996 Ghent Wevelgem. Generally it's a sprinter's race, but there's a chance a break can win. It's a fascinating race, simplified you could look at it as a battle of maybe four teams, Mapei, Telekom, and Refin, with a fourth team Polti acting as a wild card.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY2bGih-NS8&t=4494s

Mapei was the powerhouse team, with a sprinter as well as three very strong riders who can win out of breaks.

Telekom was really formed around the sprint, so they want a sprint. Olaf Ludwig was their star sprinter, but he was in the process of passing the baton at the time of this race.

Refin was formed around a sprinter as well, Abdujaporov.

Polti have a very good sprinter as well, and they have some strong riders supporting their sprinter.

At the start, Mapei launches two of their best riders into the break. Telekom's Ludwig follows. These riders actually don't think they can win a pure sprint, so they want to break away. The real reason for breaking away was to force other sprinter teams to chase, wearing out those other teams.

Refin misses the break and obliges with the chase, chasing endlessly. The gap never goes above 30 seconds for something like an hour, it's incredible how close it is. The riders are going so hard it's just incredible. Doping whatever whatever, everyone is working super hard, both up front as well as in the pack.

There's a short steep hill that shuffles the mix, and a bigger break (with two Mapei riders still) escape in the whirlwind. Polti now have a rider up front, but it is not their favored rider.

As the race approaches the finish, Refin is struggling - their riders are faltering. Polti actually puts a rider up front to help Refin - Polti are chasing their own rider. Telekom, having waited for Refin to exhaust themselves, go to the front and drive the pace. Mapei is completely absent from the front - they are still waiting for their rivals to exhaust themselves.

In the last two kilometers of the race, Telekom finally succeed in catching the break. And immediately Mapei go to the front. They've been sitting in, they are fresh, and they bring their sprinter to the front. Polti's sprinter is there. Incredibly, Refin's sprinter disappears - all the work at the front has wiped out the entire team, including their sprinter.

It's one of my favorite races to watch.

[nooneline]

Originally Posted by edgerat

I'd like to understand why when there is a chasing group and they decide not to pull for each other and then get gobbled up by the pelo again. I see this a lot in the women's tour, makes me nuts.

If you and I are chasing someone else and you start to ease off, then I am suddenly aware that you are punking me - I will use all my energy to bring you up to the front of the race, only for you to be saving energy the whole time - you will sprint past me and win easily. So I ease off, too - I don't want you to punk me. And you, seeing me ease off, well, you ease off, too. And then the person up the road suddenly has another 10 seconds.

Or, let's say we're in a small group of 5 or 6. Most of us are cooperating - but also in the group is the person who's been winning every sprint all year long. **** this - I'm not going to ride myself into the ground chasing a breakaway just to set up another team's sprinter. I ease off. You, seeing me ease off, ease off yourself. And the person up the road suddenly ahs another 10 seconds.

Cooperating is hard, especially deep into a race. Everybody needs to have the same level of commitment, the same motivation, AND the same ability to keep riding hard. This is unlikely. Smallish groups fall apart, especially late in the race, because the tactical situation doesn't benefit everyone equally.

[ridethecliche]

CDR with the winning commentary as usual.

[prototoast]

A lot of great commentary in this thread, and it please feel free to discuss specific races and specific tactics for more insights. There are a few rules of thumb at play, but these are by no means universally true (and can sometimes be directly in tension with each other):

-The more riders working together, the faster they all can go
-The more riders in a group, the more likely some won't contribute to the work of the group
-Teams want to set up the finish that maximizes their own chances of winning (e.g., the team with the best sprinter will want a bunch sprint, the team with the best breakaway rider will want a breakaway)
-Riders shouldn't chase a breakaway with their teammates in it

A couple of other factors to keep in mind:
-teams/directors/riders sometimes do stupid things, so you shouldn't assume that just because you saw it in a race, it was a good tactic
-only one rider can win any given race, and no amount of tactics can change that
-the success of any given tactic depends on the responses of the other riders, which are not known with certainty in advance
-strength--as both an individual and as a team--opens up and enhances a team's viable tactics. The tactical element of bike racing is definitely not a level playing field.

[dgauthier]

Originally Posted by carpediemracing

It really doesn't affect the attacker's ride per se. What it does is it affects the attacker's chances of success. (...)

To confirm: no one is "bringing the attacker back." The chasers are "bringing themselves forward" by chasing the attacker down using drafting and cooperation.

So the phrase "bringing him back" is a quaint figure of speech. Do I have that correct?

Edit: I just read Mark McM's post below. So it's more accurate to say the phrase "bringing him back" refers to making the attacker give up by making the attack futile. Is that about right?

[Mark McM]

The majority of the tactics of bike racing is a consequence of the physics of drafting. Drafting and wind-blocking come into play in other sports such as speed skating, sailing and motorsports, but not nearly as much as in cycling. Without drafting, and all the nuances of the tactics developed around it, cycling would be as boring triathlon.

In terms of the original question, firstly, what does it mean to "attack?" Due to drafting, a rider can't simply go to the front of the group and increase the pace, and expect to get away. The other riders in the group could simply ride in the front rider's draft, and get a free ride as the lead rider sped up. This would be to no advantage of the lead rider - it would simply tire them out, while the rest of the group would arrive in the finish with fresher legs. Instead, if a rider wants to break away, they have to launch a sharp, hard acceleration, in order to quickly establish a separation large enough that the rest of the group can no longer benefit from the breakaway rider's draft. This short, hard, energetic acceleration is called an "attack."

In order to counter an attack, someone in the group can do their own move to "bring them back". As talked about above, this can be done in several ways - one way is for one or a few riders in the group to accelerate up to the attacking rider, and get into their draft. This can discourage the attacking rider, because the attacker knows that if they continue their move, and the rider(s) who caught the attacker simply stay in the attacker's draft to save energy, then the riders in the draft can actually gain more benefit then the attacker themselves, so why continue the attack? The attacker may give up the attack, and let themselves be "brought back" to the group.

What if the attack is an attempt to get ahead of a specific rider? For example, if there is a strong sprinter in the group, then a rider may attack simply trying to get up the road ahead of the sprinter, and not care if a few other riders join him/her. In this case, in response to an attack a teammate of the sprinter may simply up their own pace, allowing the sprinter to stay in their draft as the teammate pulls the sprinter (and likely the rest of the group) at a pace just fast enough to catch back up to the attacker. In this case the sprinter's teammate sacrifices themselves and their own chances to "bring back" the attacker into the rest of the group.

Another common scenario is that once a rider attacks, another rider may react by also accelerating, filling up some of the gap between the attacker and the group, then a 3rd rider may also accelerate, filling up another portion of the gap, and then another rider accelerates into the gap, etc, essentially filling up the gap the attacker initially created between themselves and the group, and forming a "bridge" of riders between the group and the attacker. As long as the attacker was not allowed to get too big of a gap before other rider's reacted, then the reacting riders didn't have to accelerate as far as the attacker, and can get a benefit from the draft of the riders in the "bridge". When the attacker sees that instead of creating a gap between themselves and the group, they've simply created a chain of riders between themselves and the group (all getting some benefit from the attacker's draft), the attacker will likely see the folly of continuing. Those riders who jumped into the gap have effectively "brought back" the attacker.

On the one hand, drafting makes it more difficult and more dynamic for a rider to get ahead of a group. But on the other hand, it can be more exciting to watch when they do manage to do it.

[rice rocket]

Watch Norcal Cycling on Youtube, he does recap voiceovers on all his racing (Cat 1 but guests too).

He does mostly crit racing, but same principles apply.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by prototoast

-Riders shouldn't chase a breakaway with their teammates in it

Related:
- Riders don't always follow team orders. Sometimes because they have their own agenda; sometimes they just screw up. Not so much an issue in professional one-day races, but you see it in the tours (Vuelta 2023, Kuss vs Roglic vs Vingegaard, which ended "right" but there was certainly a lot of drama (some of which was probably just the press)).