This paper repeatedly asserts that the formations they studied have a practical impact for professional cycling. They claim that, to bring back a leader into the peloton, the teammates could use formation different from the usual single line. For example, 2 riders upfront shielding 1 protected rider behind them. Or a diamond of 4 riders, with the protected one in the back.
I doubt this practical value exists. The paper completely forgets one important element¹: having a single rider at the front saves the energy of the teammates. If a team was to put two riders upfront and then the chase takes more time than expected, they have no backup. And even if the strategy was to succeed and the leader gets back into the peloton, he/she will have two tired teammates instead of one, which means a reduced help for the remaining of the stage.
I also suppose pro teams already know all of this, even if they didn't have the precise benchmarks of this paper. It's just unpractical most of the time. For a diamond shape, the aerodynamic gain is pretty obvious, but with a high price to pay in order to protect a rider.
As a side note, the paper authors should learn about PDF metadata. It's quite ugly that the file's title is "Microsoft Word - 2025_Preprint_Formations_V2".
[¹]: Except when they quote a cycling specialist about the goal to "reduce the leader's effort without sacrificing too many team members".
show comments
netaustin
As a cyclist and avid fan of pro cycling, I don’t see this being so useful for transportation from a dropped position back to the peloton or breakaway. As others have noted, team cars help, and often the distance to close can be handled by one teammate. I forget which stage, but this year when Vingegaard had a mechanical and needed to swap bikes, Visma didn’t have any domestique wait for him! The protected rider is usually the best rider.
I was thinking about how this might be useful on the attack. Visma had several super domestiques remaining at the end of the tour (Jorgensen, Kuss, Simon Yates) and UAE had lost its top lieutenant. Could they have made a 2x2 train for Vingegaard? Well, maybe, but Pogacar would’ve just hopped on board. So not sure we would see this either.
Amateur rides with no cars and a wider divergence in cyclist abilities, maybe this is more useful.
show comments
mattclarkdotnet
The paper’s abstract asserts that race leaders get support from multiple riders to get back to the peloton. That’s just wrong. They use the team car and usually a single domestique to recover to the back of the peloton. Should they use more domestiques? Maybe but the the occasions where it matters would be very rare.
This paper repeatedly asserts that the formations they studied have a practical impact for professional cycling. They claim that, to bring back a leader into the peloton, the teammates could use formation different from the usual single line. For example, 2 riders upfront shielding 1 protected rider behind them. Or a diamond of 4 riders, with the protected one in the back.
I doubt this practical value exists. The paper completely forgets one important element¹: having a single rider at the front saves the energy of the teammates. If a team was to put two riders upfront and then the chase takes more time than expected, they have no backup. And even if the strategy was to succeed and the leader gets back into the peloton, he/she will have two tired teammates instead of one, which means a reduced help for the remaining of the stage.
I also suppose pro teams already know all of this, even if they didn't have the precise benchmarks of this paper. It's just unpractical most of the time. For a diamond shape, the aerodynamic gain is pretty obvious, but with a high price to pay in order to protect a rider.
As a side note, the paper authors should learn about PDF metadata. It's quite ugly that the file's title is "Microsoft Word - 2025_Preprint_Formations_V2".
[¹]: Except when they quote a cycling specialist about the goal to "reduce the leader's effort without sacrificing too many team members".
As a cyclist and avid fan of pro cycling, I don’t see this being so useful for transportation from a dropped position back to the peloton or breakaway. As others have noted, team cars help, and often the distance to close can be handled by one teammate. I forget which stage, but this year when Vingegaard had a mechanical and needed to swap bikes, Visma didn’t have any domestique wait for him! The protected rider is usually the best rider.
I was thinking about how this might be useful on the attack. Visma had several super domestiques remaining at the end of the tour (Jorgensen, Kuss, Simon Yates) and UAE had lost its top lieutenant. Could they have made a 2x2 train for Vingegaard? Well, maybe, but Pogacar would’ve just hopped on board. So not sure we would see this either.
Amateur rides with no cars and a wider divergence in cyclist abilities, maybe this is more useful.
The paper’s abstract asserts that race leaders get support from multiple riders to get back to the peloton. That’s just wrong. They use the team car and usually a single domestique to recover to the back of the peloton. Should they use more domestiques? Maybe but the the occasions where it matters would be very rare.
My fave youtube echelon analysis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wmGp2pKF60