Ban TT Bikes and Radios..

[Maxiton]

Wow, I have to say I like your misunderstood post better.

Yeah, me too. There might be a way back to pure, basic racing, but it won't be easy to get there and it likely won't be by the most direct route, legislation.

The great likelihood is that bike racing will go the way of Formula 1, and for the same reasons. (And just wait til genetic engineering and nano technologies come into play.) The only way out of that, in my view, is back to basics. And the only way back to basics is to make it: a) more exciting than high-tech is; b) more profitable for businesses; and, c) voluntary.

 

[taiwan]

I am NOT advocating the ban of carbon bikes or wheels per se... TT bikes yes- the rules should say the racer must use the same bike as he uses for road stages. What I do advocate are changes within the rules and course profiles to change the way racers view equipment.

1. If racer had to finish the race on the bike they started on (unless there was a crash) what would the bikes look like? Same for wheels. Why on earth should racers select a wheel for a certain stage?

2. Make satges of the TDF (and other major stage races) longer and over more dirt roads. This would reflect the TRUE history of racing. It would also encourage teams and riders to consider durability and reliability as well as weight and speed when choosing equipment.

3. Teams should have a set number of bikes and wheels and other components available to them over the course of the season. Because teams have unlimited supplies they have litttle concern for durability.

4. No neutral support and team support would be subject to a "penalty" becasue team cars take longer to reach the riders. Why can't riders fix their own flats? All they need to do is carry a tube. levers and pump or cartridge. They can certainly choose tires that are more punctrue resistant. For years the pictures of the TDF included riders with tires strung around their necks so they could continue if they flatted. (It always amazes me what tires pro race on... they are so light). With mechanical help available so fast teams and racers need not be concerned for reliability.

5. All bikes (everything used on the bike) used must be available for sale to the public and MUST be produced in numbers greater than 10,000.

These changes might take some of the money out of racing resulting in less teams, smaller salaries and a few less races. So what? No one needs to make millions per years as a pro, less pro teams means nothing and losing a few races is not a big deal in order to protect the sport.

As technology moves forward we are going to have to decide what is sport and what is science. Consider this if I purchased a special wheelset that let me ride as fast as Cancellara would that mean I am a champion? Of course not. Cancellara could get the same wheelset and beat me easily (actually that race would be a joke). So in the end the arms race of technology means nothing. What does have meaning are the races and the pages of history written about those races. What we are seeing today is an abberation of the sport. The riders are a coddled lot of sissies that whine like small children whenever they have to face conditions that are nothing unual in the history of the sport. Riders today have constant contact with their DS tellng them what to do and when to do it. They need not concern themselves over their bikes becasue no matter what happens they will get another bike or wheel within a short time. Shortened Tours (overall) and stages glorify ulta fast racing but neglect the strength of character needed to face longer and slower courses that may present more challenges. If these changes were made to the sport we might begin to see a different attitude and mindset take shape within the sport.

1. Why shouldn't they select a wheel for a stage?

2. Disagree that GTs need to be made harder.

3. Basically they do. Not cheap for manufacturers to supply pro teams and the agreement isn't a blank cheque.

4. I don't see what we'd learn from the knowledge that Bauke Mollema is quicker at changing tyres than Rein Taaramae. Who cares, frankly? To have strong contenders eliminated completely because of a flat just takes away from the racing IMO. See the '09 Vuelta.

5. Reasonable.

There is no wheelset which will allow you to ride as fast as Cancellara. Only by using some sort of crazy HPV could such advantage be achieved. With the rules as they are, only small gains may be made from tech. advances. It's still about athleticism, and it's a pretty level playing field. I don't understand this desire to watch televised cycle touring. Amateurs use a different bike for racing than training. It's appropriate to use lighter, less durable equipment in a race to allow the best performance, at the expense of robustness. Why is it such a good thing that durability be so crucial at this level of the sport?

Some of the things you guys are talking about, you'd have a situation where the pros were using significantly worse equipment than was available to the public. Daft.

IMO the only things you need to maintain are:

A. Fairness between teams
B. Accessability to the public

We pretty much have those. If it ain't broke...

Finally:

These changes might take some of the money out of racing resulting in less teams, smaller salaries and a few less races. So what?

TBH few people are going to agree with this.

 

[Parrulo]

Who cares what the riders, DS, sponsors think? They don't matter. What matters is if people watch the race. When people watch sponsors will sponsor teams and pay DS and riders.
Would it more exciting to see a riders without constant contact with DS racing cobbles, the Stada Bianche and the ancient roads of the Alps in a 300km stage or watch the current peleton of robots zoom perfectly paved roads in quest to gain a few seconds over 180km?
Which bike would you rather purchase, the one that was bulit to withstand 300km of punishment and had to offer security of reliability or the current ultra light, delicate machines of toady?

Years from now will people look at the photos of Contador and Armstrong and be amazed the way they are when the see photos of racing in 1900-1980

its called evolution, try to keep up with it

 

[Granville57]

Persuasive post. Seems to be arguing for the non-introduction of TT bikes, but they're already here, and would need to be put back in the box. You need to make riders stop using them (because specialists would undoubtedly want to continue)...

Well, that's a very interesting point. Would the specialists want to continue? As I said previously, I believe the TT specialists would beat the others no matter what bike was in use (given a typical TT type course). Of course it's natural to want to be able to do what one excels at, but I do wonder what their perspective would be. I would be very interested to hear thoughts of a true TT specialist on this subject. For that matter, there are a few U.S. domestic pros on this forum, I would love to hear their opinion as well. (Btw, besides a few American pros that have posted here, are there any other current pros on this forum?)

...and make all the time and money invested in their use pointless.

I suppose I feel that it already is.

Also, just to muddy the waters, where's the line between a TT bike and a road bike? A while ago TT frames were very similar to road frames, and now road frames are going towards TT frames.

Agreed. Just look at the Cervelo S5

...or the hybrid road/TT bikes that were put in use for the iTT in Colorado this year.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/08/news/two-different-men-two-different-bikes-same-time-in-vail_189743

The waters are definitely muddy.

 

[BroDeal]

..

..

This reminds me. We should get rid of TT helmets with integrated visors. They look ridiculous and they dehumanize the sport. At the very least we should say that if you want to use one for an ITT then you have to use it for every stage, including the six hour ones where it is 40 degrees.

 

[Granville57]

What about this attractive piece of dome apparel?

 

[BroDeal]

What about this attractive piece of dome apparel?

PIC OF FRAUD TEAM DELETED

I would get good with restricting the length of all helmets.

 

[craig1985]

I am NOT advocating the ban of carbon bikes or wheels per se... TT bikes yes- the rules should say the racer must use the same bike as he uses for road stages. What I do advocate are changes within the rules and course profiles to change the way racers view equipment.

1. If racer had to finish the race on the bike they started on (unless there was a crash) what would the bikes look like? Same for wheels. Why on earth should racers select a wheel for a certain stage?

2. Make satges of the TDF (and other major stage races) longer and over more dirt roads. This would reflect the TRUE history of racing. It would also encourage teams and riders to consider durability and reliability as well as weight and speed when choosing equipment.

3. Teams should have a set number of bikes and wheels and other components available to them over the course of the season. Because teams have unlimited supplies they have litttle concern for durability.

4. No neutral support and team support would be subject to a "penalty" becasue team cars take longer to reach the riders. Why can't riders fix their own flats? All they need to do is carry a tube. levers and pump or cartridge. They can certainly choose tires that are more punctrue resistant. For years the pictures of the TDF included riders with tires strung around their necks so they could continue if they flatted. (It always amazes me what tires pro race on... they are so light). With mechanical help available so fast teams and racers need not be concerned for reliability.

5. All bikes (everything used on the bike) used must be available for sale to the public and MUST be produced in numbers greater than 10,000.

These changes might take some of the money out of racing resulting in less teams, smaller salaries and a few less races. So what? No one needs to make millions per years as a pro, less pro teams means nothing and losing a few races is not a big deal in order to protect the sport.

As technology moves forward we are going to have to decide what is sport and what is science. Consider this if I purchased a special wheelset that let me ride as fast as Cancellara would that mean I am a champion? Of course not. Cancellara could get the same wheelset and beat me easily (actually that race would be a joke). So in the end the arms race of technology means nothing. What does have meaning are the races and the pages of history written about those races. What we are seeing today is an abberation of the sport. The riders are a coddled lot of sissies that whine like small children whenever they have to face conditions that are nothing unual in the history of the sport. Riders today have constant contact with their DS tellng them what to do and when to do it. They need not concern themselves over their bikes becasue no matter what happens they will get another bike or wheel within a short time. Shortened Tours (overall) and stages glorify ulta fast racing but neglect the strength of character needed to face longer and slower courses that may present more challenges. If these changes were made to the sport we might begin to see a different attitude and mindset take shape within the sport.

Sorry, what? You don't think it's fair that a guy loses a stage or a race because he had to spend time changing a tube? Hey I've done crits where I've got a flat, borrowed a wheel off somebody and took a lap out and got back on when the bunch came round again.

Who cares what the riders, DS, sponsors think? They don't matter. What matters is if people watch the race. When people watch sponsors will sponsor teams and pay DS and riders.
Would it more exciting to see a riders without constant contact with DS racing cobbles, the Stada Bianche and the ancient roads of the Alps in a 300km stage or watch the current peleton of robots zoom perfectly paved roads in quest to gain a few seconds over 180km?
Which bike would you rather purchase, the one that was bulit to withstand 300km of punishment and had to offer security of reliability or the current ultra light, delicate machines of toady?

Years from now will people look at the photos of Contador and Armstrong and be amazed the way they are when the see photos of racing in 1900-1980

I can't agree with that, without any riders you don't have a race, and without sponsors you don't have a race, team, or riders. See how that works? I don't see anything wrong with a pro earning over a million euro's a year, if it's good enough for LeBron James to earn the money that he does, it's chicken feed compared to what many pro's make.

I'll agree with Bro Deal on vizors for TT helmets, they look rather ugly.

 

[Afrank]

This reminds me. We should get rid of TT helmets with integrated visors. They look ridiculous and they dehumanize the sport. At the very least we should say that if you want to use one for an ITT then you have to use it for every stage, including the six hour ones where it is 40 degrees.

Wow, your just against all forms of advancement of any kind aren't you
I don't think the people at Giro were thinking about how good it would look when they make their helmets.

I would have to agree with Parrulo when he said "its evolution". Evolution of life, technology, and sport is inevitable. It cannot be stopped and I don't understand why anyone would want to. Look back at the riders of the past, like coppi, or bartali, and remember them as the pioneers and legends of cycing, but lets not try to force riders to ride on the same bikes as they had too, or or under the same conditions. Cycling has come a long way since then, don't fight against it's evolution, embrace it.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I would have to agree with Parrulo when he said "its evolution". Evolution of life, technology, and sport is inevitable. It cannot be stopped and I don't understand why anyone would want to. Look back at the riders of the past, like coppi, or bartali, and remember them as the pioneers and legends of cycing, but lets not try to force riders to ride on the same bikes as they had too, or or under the same conditions. Cycling has come a long way since then, don't fight against it's evolution, embrace it.

Ok, so next year they switch to recumbents, probably with fairings. It's actual progress and according to you and Parrulo it cannot be stopped. Are you going to tune into the speed fest? The UCI banned recumbents long ago. Face it, like all racing, it's an artificial environment. Nascar has their stupid carburators, UCI has their safety bicycle design. It's not some metaphysical thing to just accept. Consider it a kind of game designing.

My ProTour wish list is no DS communication with the riders. If safety is actually a valid issue, then riders can have a one-way to Race Radio. neutral support and/or pack it and no team cars.

Coppi and Bartali rode the peak of cycling technology in their day. Their stuff rides okay. Heavy, but okay. You should try it sometime. I never got the hang of the reach-down front mech, that's for sure.

 

[BroDeal]

Wow, your just against all forms of advancement of any kind aren't you
I don't think the people at Giro were thinking about how good it would look when they make their helmets.

I would have to agree with Parrulo when he said "its evolution". Evolution of life, technology, and sport is inevitable. It cannot be stopped and I don't understand why anyone would want to. Look back at the riders of the past, like coppi, or bartali, and remember them as the pioneers and legends of cycing, but lets not try to force riders to ride on the same bikes as they had too, or or under the same conditions. Cycling has come a long way since then, don't fight against it's evolution, embrace it.

Next year's Tour de France as imagined by Afrank.

Yup. There is no way we can prevent the pros from using faired bikes. It's evolution. It's progress. It cannot be stopped. It's not like we could make rules that maintain the traditions of the sport. That would never work. That's why fully faired bikes are used in all pro time trials today--oops, I guess not...maybe rules actually work after all.

 

[BroDeal]

I don't think the people at Giro were thinking about how good it would look when they make their helmets.

I don't give a damn what the people at Giro were thinking just like I don't give a damn what you think when your argument boils down to, "Wowza! Something new has been created. We have to use it without consideration of how it will affect the sport.".

Giant integrated visors dehumanize the competitors, and that is not a good for the sport. They look right ugly as well.

 

[nightfend]

From a logistical point of view, the smaller pro teams would probably welcome using their standard road bikes for time trials. As it is now, teams are forced to send both road and tt bikes to races, and this is a lot of extra expense. You'll note that often, the smaller stage races around the world have moved to a system where tt bikes are restricted and riders are required to use their road bikes.

 

[Granville57]

As has been the case in the Tour of Qatar. Simple logistics rules out the use of TT bikes. Recent winners in the TTT for 2008, 2009 & 2010:

 

[Afrank]

BroDeal and DirtyWorks when I said evolution of sport I meant new technologies, things like carbon fiber, TT bars, disc wheels. Recumbants are not a new technology, they have been around a long time now, and there is no way in which they would be alowed in the tour de france or any other stage race. Professional road racing uses road bikes and time trial bikes, and that is not going to change anytime soon, and I would not support the use of recumbants even if they tried to use them. I am not against rules in sport that keep it fair, or keep its traditions intact, and I never said I was against rules in my previous post so I don't see where your getting that. What I am against is forcing riders to ride on outdated equipment that is no longer relevant and under bad conditions just because the cyclists of the past had to.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Evolution of life, technology, and sport is inevitable. It cannot be stopped...

I am not against rules in sport that keep it fair, or keep its traditions intact, ....
What I am against is forcing riders to ride on outdated equipment that is no longer relevant

The fact of the matter is the UCI stops ideas from developing further all of the time. An old one is forbidding recumbents. Who needs a seat tube getting in the way on a TT bike anymore when one can be molded into a much faster form with the seat hanging off a floating top-tube?

If you really were endorsing 'evolution,' in the grand sense of the word and relevant equipment then you would welcome the recumbents, long goofy helmets, clothing with builtin fairings and so on...

You want to keep the rules you like. Recumbents at UCI races isn't on AFrank's list of bikes to allow. Fine. Really! Own it. Just don't hide behind some grander shared idea as justification for your position. It's enough to like something for what it is.

 

[Douglas Ng-a-kien]

Why not up the ante further? Baggy air catching shorts a must, jersey's that catch air, the mounting of square objects on the head tube and down tube to increase drag, a small parachute attached to each riders seat post to slow him down, a 5kg lead weight dropped down in the seat tube, square helmets. Then the riders must work on their own bikes, even having to fix flats out on the road, the Mavic neutral support only to carry tools and a welder or stove to cure carbon fiber (carbon fiber and epoxy as well), riders to braid their own cables, police the road on their own, race on open roads and must obey all traffic regulations, ...

Get real, either move on with the 21st century or move to a planet where you can still live in the 19th century as you're describing.

LOL. Amen brother. Times are changing and this is the way racing is done. At the end of races you hear about the rider's ability, not the bike he was riding on.

 

[Benotti69]

I still don't see any good argument for using TT bikes in a stage race. If the point of the TT bike is that it is more aero and allows a more aero position for the rider, and everyone is allowed to use them...then what is the point? Have a time trial on road bikes and Cancellara is still going to be in the top three on any given day; Evans is still going to beat Schleck. So what is gained by introducing TT bikes into the equation? Bragging rights for the highest top speed that is imperceptible unless you're standing on the side of the road as the rider passes by?

What we often see is certain teams and riders humiliating themselves with out-of-control crashes and other mishaps. How does that serve the sport well? On road bikes or TT bikes, Wiggins is still going to beat Cavendish in a long race against the clock—every time. So...what is the point?

Not to mention, allowing TT bikes means that the bike usually dictates the course—which is usually bland and boring beyond words. One beautiful exception to this was the Stage 12 TT for the 2009 Giro. That presented the rare instance where, because of the course, most (all?) riders opted for road bikes, many with clip-on aero bars attached.

I would love to see future TTs on more varied terrain, on road bikes, that put more of the rider's overall skills to the test. Call me crazy.

+1 .........crazy guy.

 

[BroDeal]

LOL. Amen brother. Times are changing and this is the way racing is done. At the end of races you hear about the rider's ability, not the bike he was riding on.

You should take a gander at Slowtwitch some day. They orgasm over every bike manufacturer announcement, attribute wins to bikes, and calculate the frontal area of exposed cables. That is what bike manufacturers want pro cycling to become.

 

[Granville57]

At the end of races you hear about the rider's ability, not the bike he was riding on.

If true, that would pretty much support my argument that there's no reason to use TT bikes. Martin, Cancellara, Contador, Wiggins, Evans, etc., are always going to beat the majority of the field with the current type of TT courses. So why bother with the over-engineered, difficult to maneuver, speciality bikes that are completely out of the reach of most cycling fans, place an extra burden on teams and mechanics, and turn one or more days of a stage race into a scene straight out of Tron?

 

[chasbo]

If true, that would pretty much support my argument that there's no reason to use TT bikes. Martin, Cancellara, Contador, Wiggins, Evans, etc., are always going to beat the majority of the field with the current type of TT courses. So why bother with the over-engineered, difficult to maneuver, speciality bikes that are completely out of the reach of most cycling fans, place an extra burden on teams and mechanics, and turn one or more days of a stage race into a scene straight out of Tron?

One way to fix the problem would be to design courses where a TT bike would be a disadvantage. I can never get the image of Ole Ritter out of my mind riding the way he did. He was the epitome of smooth. No goofy helmet and no TT bike. I would rather see that then any body doing their best praying mantis impression. Watching Eddy in the hour was another moment of pure cycling coolness. Even Boardman was cool when he showed how to do it on a drop bar bike in the hour. I agree that TT bikes aren't neccessary for the spectacle of racing.

 

[doolols]

Is it just me that thinks it strange that the OP uses this thing called the internet, and posts a YouTube video, complaining about the progress of technology?

Manufacturers have to sell new gear to stay in business, and new gear has to have something new on it to sell. Hence progress.

But ... using one bike for one race (be it GT or single day) has to be a good idea. Isn't there a danger that riders could "oops-a-daisy, something wrong with my bike; can I have another one of the roof of the team car; my word, this one seems to be better at climbing this last big hill than the one I've used for the flat bits of today's stage"?

 

[doolols]

P.S. I suppose fans of American Football see nothing wrong with having specialist teams (or equipment?) for different parts of a game / race?