Ban TT Bikes and Radios..

[orangerider]

The only thing I'd be inclined to pitch out of racing is electronic shifting. My problem with it is that a rider starts a race with stored power that they then proceed to use for something that traditional would have been done with by muscle (as small an action as shifting is . . .) Over the span of the Tour, a rider would shift ten of thousands of times, each time expending a small but cumulative amount of energy. Bring in electronic shifting and a rider just saved all that effort. As a rule, no one should be able to start a race with a device that will use a battery to save effort.

Already posted here, but the new hardware testing that gets done in grueling conditions is what allows the manufacturers to make any money off their sponsorship. Cut that lifeblood off and pro cycling will die for sure.

 

[Maxiton]

As I said earlier, it's a laudable idea, but in order for it to work it has to be something everyone wants to do - or at least something few find objectionable. Maybe if it's introduced as a new category of racing, something distinct from contemporary road racing: call it classic road racing.

Classic road racing could start as a single stage race. Add the Strade Bianche and a few additional races, and you've got a whole new thing to drive additional business!

In other words, it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, where fans of the older style insist that all racing be done this way, or else. I don't think that war is gonna get won.

If classic racing became popular as a separate category, who knows, it could be incorporated into some individual stages of the GTs. And if it really is more exciting and drives the popularity of racing, it might just supplant the way things are done currently. If not, it'll still exist as its own category.

PS. This was my 2000th post. A minor milestone!

 

[BroDeal]

Already posted here, but the new hardware testing that gets done in grueling conditions is what allows the manufacturers to make any money off their sponsorship. Cut that lifeblood off and pro cycling will die for sure.

This is a bunch of crap. The only reason companies sponsor teams is for branding. It's to convince the punters to buy the company's bikes rather than ones with a different name on the down tube. The frames for different companies are often manufactured in the same asian factory. Bike companies sell products that have neglible differences. The way the big companies have to separate themselves from the rabble is to sponsor pro teams. If pro bikes were restricted to being made of wood, bike companies would still sponsor teams.

 

[craig1985]

I like race radios, but only for the riders to talk to their DS, but the latter can't talk back.

 

[just some guy]

Let them ride and wear whatever they want - welcome to the 21 century

Re RR open mics with us the viewer able to listen in would add to the race watching enjoyment and bring in fans imo

 

[Fus087]

The only thing I'd be inclined to pitch out of racing is electronic shifting. My problem with it is that a rider starts a race with stored power that they then proceed to use for something that traditional would have been done with by muscle (as small an action as shifting is . . .) Over the span of the Tour, a rider would shift ten of thousands of times, each time expending a small but cumulative amount of energy. Bring in electronic shifting and a rider just saved all that effort. As a rule, no one should be able to start a race with a device that will use a battery to save effort.

However, the rider with electronic shifting would have to carry the battery on the bike. These things are still relatively heavy (although the weight will go down over time), so he has to use more energy for moving that.
And I've never really felt it as an effort to shift manually, not even after 5 hours on a 21% final climb. I doubt the electronic shifting saves noticeable energy.

 

[BroDeal]

However, the rider with electronic shifting would have to carry the battery on the bike. These things are still relatively heavy (although the weight will go down over time), so he has to use more energy for moving that.

The batteries do not add any weight unless the bike is over the minimum weight limit.

 

[Nederick]

What's next though? Riders tweeting during the race?

 

[BroDeal]

What's next though? Riders tweeting during the race?

Hey, the technology is here. We cannot go back. You don't want to live in the past, like a whole two years ago, do you?

 

[Bryins]

Think about it...

If teams have limited equipment and limited support then they will be forced to use real world equipment and not some stupid light crapola. The history of the TDF (and the classics) was one of hard men racing the elements and Mr. Murphy as much as they did each other. Henery Desrange (excuse spelling) the founder of the TDF considered the perfect TDF the one in which only one man was able to finish it was so difficult.
What would he or the men who won those early TDF and classics think of the curent situation? I am sure I can hear their ghost laughing.
If teams ar forced to be sure their man will finish on the bike he starts on imagine how the suppliers will respond? With bikes that are unbreakable. Wouldn't that be something...
Radios to let the DS think for the riders... Delicate wheels and frames better suited to the child than a hard man in a hard race... Eectronic shifting?
Real cycle racing ended sometime around the time Andy Hampsten defied reason on the Gavia, when Sean Kelly hung up his wheels and the idea that we need little motors to move the chain from cog to cog took hold.

 

[craig1985]

I like the idea of riders being able to talk about to the team car if there is a serious crash and time is of the essence.

 

[Fester]

The whole notion of development and "keeping up with the times" is flawed. There hasn't been a significant improvement to the safety bicycle since the derailleur was introduced, if the arbitrary rules were remove a TT bike might look like this:

and do 131kph... just saying there is no sense to spending an extra $12000 on something that basically not one thing or the other i.e. not a safety bicycle where form follows function, nor the best designed bicycle possible as in a hpv. Unless you appreciate the TT bicycle as a piece of modern art, they are just daft.

 

[chasbo]

I would love to see a throwback TdF or Giro. Everyone on steel bikes, box section rims and downtube shifters. Bring some dirt roads back into it and have a couple days with two stages. That would be a race that would make me willing to go to France or Italy to see it in person.

I love the idea of banning TT bikes. As with the hour record, make it about the best rider, not the most aerodynamic setup.

 

[chasbo]

Real cycle racing ended sometime around the time Andy Hampsten defied reason on the Gavia, when Sean Kelly hung up his wheels and the idea that we need little motors to move the chain from cog to cog took hold.

We have a poster in my shop with Kelly covered in mud and just crushing on the cobbles. To me, that is the essence of great racing, battling the elements and other riders for the win.

 

[Nederick]

refer the Bike Pod

 

[Afrank]

I find this entire thread completely ridiculous, who cares if pro teams use the most technologically advanced bikes they can get. I for one enjoy watching bike technology grow, and teams use that technology. If you don't like it then stick to the local cat 5 races.

 

[BroDeal]

I find this entire thread completely ridiculous, who cares if pro teams use the most technologically advanced bikes they can get. I for one enjoy watching bike technology grow, and teams use that technology. If you don't like it then stick to the local cat 5 races.

Then go watch a triathlon. The rest of us would like to see a competition between riders, not one between poindexters in cubicles.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I find this entire thread completely ridiculous, who cares if pro teams use the most technologically advanced bikes they can get. I for one enjoy watching bike technology grow, and teams use that technology. If you don't like it then stick to the local cat 5 races.

The cat 5's are the ones showing up with the TT and carbon gear! Which I believe is the point. The bike companies follow/promote UCI specification racing and in exchange they sell more equipment

I think less stuff is a great idea. It's a matter of where though. At the TdF, I think the equipment adds to the spectacle. Your local 25K TT and most categories should be made much cheaper to race. 19lb. bike minimum, 16 spoke, alloy rimmed wheel minimum spec on wheels. Alloy pretty much everywhere. Clip-on TT bars seem okay. As it is, the UCI's policies do not support viable domestic pro economies, so I'd be good with that spec up to maybe UCI 2.x races.

You know how that would work out? Club and fun rides would be blinged out as usual, with low-spec race bikes used during competitive events.

 

[Afrank]

Then go watch a triathlon. The rest of us would like to see a competition between riders, not one between poindexters in cubicles.

It is still a competition between riders even with advanced TT bikes, all riders in the pro peleton have access to them, I don't see any unfair advantage there. Go watch any hilly stage of the tour or any time trial in any grand tour then try to make the case that there isn't any competition there.

 

[Granville57]

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.

 

[Choocher]

I really like this idea of a one-off stage race, or even a series of one day races devoted to old-school tech. That would be really fun to watch.

Welcome to the forum. I don't think it's practical, nor advisable, to legislate such drastic changes from on high. And besides, bike manufacturers - and riders, and fans, and sponsors - will never go along with it. You thought taking away radios caused a stink? Just try taking away TT bikes, carbon fiber, and pavement!

What could work, though, is a race. Similar to the popular Strade Bianche, but a stage race. Imagine a week of truly old school racing: steel racing bikes, almost no pavement (think also Crostis), no aero helmets, no skin suits, no tt bikes, no radios. They should get Zomegan to design it. It would be awesome!

If it was a success - if the fans and the riders liked it - really liked it - then who knows? It might catch on.

 

[taiwan]

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? ...

Persusive 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) and make all the time and money nvested in their use pointless. 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. Apart from that you've just got individual components, and the same headaches of regulation. I suppose what I mean is you're trading one arbitary standard for another. In the 30s they rode what they had, in the 80s they rode what they had - just let them ride what's available.

 

[Bryins]

Misunderstanding

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.

 

[ElChingon]

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

 

[Bryins]

And..

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