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…
→ https://youtu.be/Wnp2q_ag6Mc
Crucial Tour De France Bikes: Pogacar Vs Vingegaard
→ https://youtu.be/qQFXArSDO5I
Why Tour de France Teams Are Divided On Chain Waxing
→ https://youtu.be/G9ejcYBTJtk
The HOTTEST Bikes Of The Tour De France 2024
→ https://youtu.be/pLY-rHPqMmk
2024 Tour De France Bike Prices – Ranked
→ https://youtu.be/m4s2_RoST34
Hands-On: Colnago Y1RS – Pogacar’s 2025 Tour de France Bike
→ https://youtu.be/mrz7m1Jx6I4
Listen to the BikeRadar Podcast
→ https://www.bikeradar.com/bikeradar-podcast/
Follow BikeRadar on our social media channels:
→ https://instagram.com/bikeradar
→ https://facebook.com/bikeradar
→ https://twitter.com/bikeradar
BikeRadar is supported by Mountain Biking UK and Cycling Plus Magazine –For more information and to subscribe please visit
→ https://bit.ly/3nMr3Rn
For more content like this see our latest subscription offer –
→ https://www.cyclingplus.com/subscribe-today/
→ https://www.mbuk.com/subscribe-today/
29 Comments
Do you think pro cyclists are going too fast, or is there more to the story? 👇
Full face helmets, leathers and preferably 4 wheels. 🫳🎤
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Other better motorsports are available……….
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.
Unsafe Roads, Thank you!
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.
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
I’m not sure this guy is much of a road racing authority.
If you want a safe sport play golf.
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.
He only wants the weight limit increasing because then better aerodynamics can be developed which is his speciality.
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.
Why do people keep crossreferncing cycling with f1?
It would make more sense to compare it to Motogp or World Superbikes
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
If the helmets were banned they would immediately take more care.
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
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.
No thanks I want a light bike. Make racing courses safer.
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'
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?
Angular momentum + ill-fitting bikes
I like Dan´s idea. More safety gear is needed, perhaps some form of suspension to increase traction. Wider tyres perhaps?
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.