Olympic Track Cycling

[King Boonen]

Anyone have any views on the American left side drive track bike? Would it make any difference do you think?

Yes, it will. Aerodynamics play a huge part in track cycling, much more so than on the road. A lot of it can be a trade-off, most powerful position versus most aero versus comfort, but with the crank the only thing that can change is aerodynamics. It's a bit like shoe covers in road TTs, they are the best bang for your buck as they are extremely cheap and are only beneficial. Whether the difference is influential on results massively depends on the riders and the level of competition.

[TheSpud]

Anyone have any views on the American left side drive track bike? Would it make any difference do you think?

Yes, it will. Aerodynamics play a huge part in track cycling, much more so than on the road. A lot of it can be a trade-off, most powerful position versus most aero versus comfort, but with the crank the only thing that can change is aerodynamics. It's a bit like shoe covers in road TTs, they are the best bang for your buck as they are extremely cheap and are only beneficial. Whether the difference is influential on results massively depends on the riders and the level of competition.

Certainly there is a logic putting it on that side - after all it will travel a shorter distance than if it was on the normal side. Also rotating parts that are also travelling (like cranks, or tyres on an F1 car) mess with drag and aero significantly. I wonder whether we'll see other teams (eg GB) doing the same.

I'm also surprised that more hasn't been done on tube / frame profiles to account for always riding anticlockwise. Or then again maybe it has and we just don't know about it.

[zalacain]

[/quote]
I wonder whether we'll see other teams (eg GB) doing the same.
/quote]
On the BBC commentary Boardman said BC had looked into the idea several years ago but dismissed it

[TheSpud]

I wonder whether we'll see other teams (eg GB) doing the same.

On the BBC commentary Boardman said BC had looked into the idea several years ago but dismissed it

Interesting - I guess it doesn't make a big difference then

[veji11]

It's a real shame at least one more endurance event/bunch race isn't allowed into the Olympic programme. The Points race and Scratch race make for much more aggressive and entertaining riding when they aren't part of a multi-event competition like in the omnium.

Very true, although I quite enjoyed watching the Omnium which was much more fun than watching the speed events. I would get rid of one of the keirin, individual sprint or team sprint event and bring back the Madison for example. My choice would be to get rid of the individual sprint and keep the Keirin, where uncertainty is (normally) higher.

[King Boonen]

Hey dude I haven't talked doping, I have been talking domination.

That bit wasn't to you, just because my post came after yours doesn't mean it directly relates to it. The offending post has been removed, I didn't want to quote it and continue the discussion.

If you're going to be silly the conversation is over. Have fun.

Come on saying that the results were worse, whereas statistically you were right to correct me in that they were astonishingly consistent in their excellence over the last 3 olympic games, was being silly wasn't it ?

Sorry, I have a low tolerance for responses like the one you gave, mainly due to interactions in the clinic.

You claimed they improved each Olympics, they didn't. The trend is downwards. I used the word clearly because a reduction in gold medals is clear. Clear does not mean large, it just means it's easy to see. The only real measure we can actually use is gold medals over the last two olympics, as that is really the only time the competition has been the same. Silver and bronze are a poor measure as the selection criteria changed and the 2008 events list was very different. In this case their achievement was 15% worse compared to 2012, that's a clear difference even if it's not large in this context.

It's a real shame at least one more endurance event/bunch race isn't allowed into the Olympic programme. The Points race and Scratch race make for much more aggressive and entertaining riding when they aren't part of a multi-event competition like in the omnium.

Very true, although I quite enjoyed watching the Omnium which was much more fun than watching the speed events. I would get rid of one of the keirin, individual sprint or team sprint event and bring back the Madison for example. My choice would be to get rid of the individual sprint and keep the Keirin, where uncertainty is (normally) higher.

Can't get rid of the sprints, they fill time. I don't know, but I'm sure that there is a requirement for the programme to last a certain length as the cost of building a velodrome is large. I would really like to see the kilo, madison, scratch and points racein with the omnium out, but I don't think they are allowed to increase the number of medals awarded.

[King Boonen]

I wonder whether we'll see other teams (eg GB) doing the same.

On the BBC commentary Boardman said BC had looked into the idea several years ago but dismissed it

Interesting - I guess it doesn't make a big difference then

Surely it must have to make no difference or be detrimental for GB to not do it? If they did look at it several years ago they were basically making the frames as one offs so design costs can't have been a worry and in terms of the actual crank it's just a case cutting the pedals threads in the opposite direction. For a team of marginal gains I find it surprising it would be dismissed as I can't really see a down side.

[vedrafjord]

To be honest this Olympics is the first time I paid attention to track cycling, or even watched a track race, but I've enjoyed it, and have seen friends who never watch any cycling on TV get quite absorbed in the action. It seems made for TV, especially when compared to the certain stages of this year's Tour...

I've also been surprised by the spread of the field compared to what I'd heard from people in the road racing forums here.

The perception is only Anglo countries care about track, but looking at the medals table for the last track world championships, there are lots of non-Anglo countries like Germany, Russia, China featuring heavily, and the 57 medals were shared between 22 countries, with 10 non-European countries and every continent except Africa represented.

Comparing that to, say, the podiums of last year's World Tour events - the 81 podium spots were shared between only 18 countries, with Australia, Colombia, and the USA the only non-European ones.

Obviously road cycling is way more popular in general, as road cycling can happen anywhere there's a road, but it's wrong to say only UK/Aus care about the track. I'd love if there was a Belgian track renaissance for example. Instead of one of the flat middle eastern stage races, imagine if there was a big, televised, pre-classics warmup track meet in a packed velodrome in Belgium featuring road sprinters and hardmen?

[pastronef]

https://twitter.com/petercossins/status/765853836066062336
‏@petercossins
French coaching dir Jacquet admits to "problem of leadership, of management" in @lequipe . Says team sprint trio were a team in name only


https://twitter.com/Doctor_Hutch/status/765855244412649472
‏@petercossins
Jacques apparently looking for a Shane Sutton-type figure as link between him and track coaches

[veji11]

To be honest this Olympics is the first time I paid attention to track cycling, or even watched a track race, but I've enjoyed it, and have seen friends who never watch any cycling on TV get quite absorbed in the action. It seems made for TV, especially when compared to the certain stages of this year's Tour...

I've also been surprised by the spread of the field compared to what I'd heard from people in the road racing forums here.

The perception is only Anglo countries care about track, but looking at the medals table for the last track world championships, there are lots of non-Anglo countries like Germany, Russia, China featuring heavily, and the 57 medals were shared between 22 countries, with 10 non-European countries and every continent except Africa represented.

Comparing that to, say, the podiums of last year's World Tour events - the 81 podium spots were shared between only 18 countries, with Australia, Colombia, and the USA the only non-European ones.

Obviously road cycling is way more popular in general, as road cycling can happen anywhere there's a road, but it's wrong to say only UK/Aus care about the track. I'd love if there was a Belgian track renaissance for example. Instead of one of the flat middle eastern stage races, imagine if there was a big, televised, pre-classics warmup track meet in a packed velodrome in Belgium featuring road sprinters and hardmen?

The issue has been on track that for the last 8/10 years the Brits have been overall the dominating country, but in a "normal" proportion at word championships and other events, yet have consistently (if you would allow this term King Boonen) trashed the opposition at 3 olympic games in a row, where the other athletes are suddenly left reeling and in no position to even hope to compete. Again I am not accusing them of doping, most probably they are super organised and have maximised the gains of physical preparation and some equipment optimization to peak at the olympics, but whereas at words one can watch the races not knowing the result in advance, at the olympics barring a fall or really shear insufficient athletic ability like this Cavendish bloke ( ) the Brits will get gold. The domination is breathtaking and shocking.

[veji11]

https://twitter.com/petercossins/status/765853836066062336
‏@petercossins
French coaching dir Jacquet admits to "problem of leadership, of management" in @lequipe . Says team sprint trio were a team in name only

https://twitter.com/Doctor_Hutch/status/765855244412649472
‏@petercossins
Jacques apparently looking for a Shane Sutton-type figure as link between him and track coaches

French disfonctionnality at these games has been epic, clearly the failure they experienced will be a good opportunity for a tabula rasa. They have noone to blame but themselves for not having had better haul of medals, at least talking silver and bronzes...

[TheSpud]

I wonder whether we'll see other teams (eg GB) doing the same.

On the BBC commentary Boardman said BC had looked into the idea several years ago but dismissed it

Interesting - I guess it doesn't make a big difference then

Surely it must have to make no difference or be detrimental for GB to not do it? If they did look at it several years ago they were basically making the frames as one offs so design costs can't have been a worry and in terms of the actual crank it's just a case cutting the pedals threads in the opposite direction. For a team of marginal gains I find it surprising it would be dismissed as I can't really see a down side.

Well, absolutely it must be no difference or detrimental as you say. The fact that no-one else has done it would also suggest that it makes no difference. Strange that the Americans would get something like that wrong.

[TheSpud]

Sorry, I have a low tolerance for responses like the one you gave, mainly due to interactions in the clinic.

You claimed they improved each Olympics, they didn't. The trend is downwards. I used the word clearly because a reduction in gold medals is clear. Clear does not mean large, it just means it's easy to see. The only real measure we can actually use is gold medals over the last two olympics, as that is really the only time the competition has been the same. Silver and bronze are a poor measure as the selection criteria changed and the 2008 events list was very different. In this case their achievement was 15% worse compared to 2012, that's a clear difference even if it's not large in this context.

But they did cut some of the races that GB were better at didn't they to try and cut their dominance - IP and 1k TT? Or did I dream that?

Also I think its also valid to consider Silver & Gold. The margins as so small in the final (generally) that losing out could happen for all manner of reasons other than outright performance. Either way you cut it GB are still dominant.

[King Boonen]

Sorry, I have a low tolerance for responses like the one you gave, mainly due to interactions in the clinic.

You claimed they improved each Olympics, they didn't. The trend is downwards. I used the word clearly because a reduction in gold medals is clear. Clear does not mean large, it just means it's easy to see. The only real measure we can actually use is gold medals over the last two olympics, as that is really the only time the competition has been the same. Silver and bronze are a poor measure as the selection criteria changed and the 2008 events list was very different. In this case their achievement was 15% worse compared to 2012, that's a clear difference even if it's not large in this context.

But they did cut some of the races that GB were better at didn't they to try and cut their dominance - IP and 1k TT? Or did I dream that?

Also I think its also valid to consider Silver & Gold. The margins as so small in the final (generally) that losing out could happen for all manner of reasons other than outright performance. Either way you cut it GB are still dominant.

Kilo was already gone by 2008. They cut 5 events, three of which, mens madison, mens points and momens' points GB only managed 1 bronze in, in the mens points. They also cut the IP, but the events added were mainly womens' events where GB had the strongest riders, womens' ominum, TP and keirin (Pendleton Vs Meares here obviously).

The narrow margins aren't that narrow, especially in sprinting. If you ask the sprinters they'll tell you if you win by the width a from rim you knew you were going to win easily. Even the smaller gaps they usually know a good few metres before the line.

You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser

[veji11]

You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser

Am sorry but this is ridiculous, to evaluate overall dominance density of placing counts : Gold is key but overall medal volume counts as well because it shows density, Whatever way you cut it GB has been utterly dominant for 3 olympic games, the results have been fantastically stable in their excellency.

[King Boonen]

You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser

Am sorry but this is ridiculous, to evaluate overall dominance density of placing counts : Gold is key but overall medal volume counts as well because it shows density, Whatever way you cut it GB has been utterly dominant for 3 olympic games, the results have been fantastically stable in their excellency.

Did you actually understand what I wrote?

[veji11]

You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser

Am sorry but this is ridiculous, to evaluate overall dominance density of placing counts : Gold is key but overall medal volume counts as well because it shows density, Whatever way you cut it GB has been utterly dominant for 3 olympic games, the results have been fantastically stable in their excellency.

Did you actually understand what I wrote?

Well to some extent... You say silve medals don't count and I say that overall medal numbers are also a way to measure density at the highest level.

[King Boonen]

You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser

Am sorry but this is ridiculous, to evaluate overall dominance density of placing counts : Gold is key but overall medal volume counts as well because it shows density, Whatever way you cut it GB has been utterly dominant for 3 olympic games, the results have been fantastically stable in their excellency.

Did you actually understand what I wrote?

Well to some extent... You say silve medals don't count and I say that overall medal numbers are also a way to measure density at the highest level.

Sorry no, I will try and be more clear. In 2012 nations could only select 1 rider per event. This means that the total number of medals a nation can win will be less. It also means that medals below gold may go to someone who is not necessarily the second or third best rider, as they may be from a nation which the gold medalist came from and so couldn't compete. This can go either way, but it very likely reduced the total number of medals GB won. You can scale it for total number of medals available per rider per nation, but unless you count all three medals the same you will bias the results through ranking them. Including lower medals in knock-out competitions is also problematic as riders who may have progressed to the final or bronze medal race could be knocked out early.

The easiest way to do it is just to look at the Gold medals which have a downward trend over the only comparable competitions we have. It's really too short a period to draw any conclusions anyway and this getting very far away from the original point so I'm going to stop.

[TheSpud]

Sorry, I have a low tolerance for responses like the one you gave, mainly due to interactions in the clinic.

You claimed they improved each Olympics, they didn't. The trend is downwards. I used the word clearly because a reduction in gold medals is clear. Clear does not mean large, it just means it's easy to see. The only real measure we can actually use is gold medals over the last two olympics, as that is really the only time the competition has been the same. Silver and bronze are a poor measure as the selection criteria changed and the 2008 events list was very different. In this case their achievement was 15% worse compared to 2012, that's a clear difference even if it's not large in this context.

But they did cut some of the races that GB were better at didn't they to try and cut their dominance - IP and 1k TT? Or did I dream that?

Also I think its also valid to consider Silver & Gold. The margins as so small in the final (generally) that losing out could happen for all manner of reasons other than outright performance. Either way you cut it GB are still dominant.

Kilo was already gone by 2008. They cut 5 events, three of which, mens madison, mens points and momens' points GB only managed 1 bronze in, in the mens points. They also cut the IP, but the events added were mainly womens' events where GB had the strongest riders, womens' ominum, TP and keirin (Pendleton Vs Meares here obviously).

The narrow margins aren't that narrow, especially in sprinting. If you ask the sprinters they'll tell you if you win by the width a from rim you knew you were going to win easily. Even the smaller gaps they usually know a good few metres before the line.

You can't include silver because of the selection criteria for London. It's very possible GB would have been even more dominant, but as they only allowed one rider per nation this skews the results. Also, silver is a fancy word for first loser

Ah ok - I just seem to remember seeing / reading about them cutting certain events that GB had been good in. I didn't consider that they added in Women's ones that we were equally good in! Good point re: silver and London.

I'm annoyed they didn't have the Madison as its a great race to watch - although explaining it to Mrs Spud would have been a nightmare, it was hard enough explaining the Sprint and the Keirin!

[veji11]

Sorry no, I will try and be more clear. In 2012 nations could only select 1 rider per event. This means that the total number of medals a nation can win will be less. It also means that medals below gold may go to someone who is not necessarily the second or third best rider, as they may be from a nation which the gold medalist came from and so couldn't compete. This can go either way, but it very likely reduced the total number of medals GB won. You can scale it for total number of medals available per rider per nation, but unless you count all three medals the same you will bias the results through ranking them. Including lower medals in knock-out competitions is also problematic as riders who may have progressed to the final or bronze medal race could be knocked out early.

The easiest way to do it is just to look at the Gold medals which have a downward trend over the only comparable competitions we have. It's really too short a period to draw any conclusions anyway and this getting very far away from the original point so I'm going to stop.

Ok thanks for the explanations of the first paragraph, regarding the end, I suppose I will have to stop arguing with you too because I find your "downward trend" hilarious in its absurdity. the Brits have had 7;7;6 gold medals and 12;9;12 medals overall over the last 3 olympic games for track cycling. Arguing that that one gold medal less in 2016 is evidence of a downward trend is just absurd to me. The dominance has been equivalent, the statistics support it, there is no "downward trend" at play here whatsoever.