Brailsford to UCI: "Let them eat cake"

[dsut4392]

Is Dave Brailsford taking the pi*S? He can't really have missed the point quite so badly can he?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/track-technology-disparity-ucis-latest-target

"I think they're just trying to find parity," he added. "If the smaller nations want to start investing the same amount of money as the governments of Britain, Germany and Australia do then they're free to do so."

Much as UCI-hating seems to be a sport in it's own right, and the constant rule changes or erratic enforcement are a joke, I have to agree that in principle they have a point about unfair competitive advantage when some national teams are spending many tens of thousands of $/£ on each bike...

[edit/]apologies for posting a 'track' thread in the road forum...i forget the track forum even exists i so seldom read it...[/edit]

 

[Big GMaC]

I can see where he is coming from (leaving nationalism aside) actually.

As long as the bike fit inside the UCI regualtions, i.e. double triangle, 3:1 rule etc. I see no barrier to teams investing money in the bikes.

I didn't see Patty complaining when Boonen had his $120,000 custom mould made...

 

[M Sport]

I didn't see Patty complaining when Boonen had his $120,000 custom mould made...

No need for complaints, he hasn't won anything in awhile. He's probably spent more on coke than the custom mould anyway.

Seriously though, Brailsford doesn't quite get it does he ... either that of he's a comedian.

 

[Big GMaC]

No need for complaints, he hasn't won anything in awhile. He's probably spent more on coke than the custom mould anyway.

Seriously though, Brailsford doesn't quite get it does he ... either that of he's a comedian.

So Roubaix '08 and '09 don't count for you then?

I don't see what there is not to get?

The frames fit inside the regulations, therefore why does the cost matter?

If other teams want those frames then invest the money.

 

[M Sport]

So Roubaix '08 and '09 don't count for you then?

The Custom mould was a Tarmac, Roubaix was won on coincidentally .. a Roubaix.

 

[dsut4392]

Don't get me wrong, I see where he's coming from as well: 'I want my athletes to have the best possible chance of victory, and if anyone wants to try and do a better job of it, go ahead'.

But it's one thing a [commercial] team sponsor doing it in the world of professional racing, and another to insist that it's right for a national federation to be expected to spend this sort of money to have a fair chance in a 'Nations' competition.

Saying that it's "fair" because any nation could buy assistance from F1 development and materials research is either taking the pi*s or being disingenuous. It's like the "so let them eat cake" reply when told the peasants are starving cause they can't buy bread - most teams simply _don't have_ that kind of money to invest (and yes, I am aware that the actual hardware is but a small part of the cost of fielding a large competitive team at a worlds meet).

I'm an Aussie/British dual national and I'm appalled at the sums of money both nations spend on elite sport (with cycling only a small part) in an attempt to buy national glory.

Even granting that sporting achievement is a worthy measure of a nation, what pride or glory is there in a victory won in uneven contest?

 

[High Cotton]

It should be about the riders, not the bikes.

 

[Big GMaC]

and ultimately it is about the riders. the bikes will not make the winning difference, they are just part of the package

to MSport:

Tom Boonen (Quick Step) captured a third Paris-Roubaix win on a custom Specialized S-Works Roubaix SL2 built just for him.

The Roubaix's slacker geometry and Zertz dampers were just the thing for the cobbles of Paris-Roubaix but just as with the Tarmac SL2, the stock geometry didn't work for Boonen so Specialized created a special mold with a longer top tube and shorter head tube.

 

[Cerberus]

and ultimately it is about the riders the bikes will not make the winning difference, they are just part of the package

So you're saying that Brailsford (and the Austrailian and German trainer too) are complete morons, wasting tons of money on something that doesn't make a difference? Excuse me if I have a higher opinion of them than that.

 

[M Sport]

It should be about the riders, not the bikes.

Exactly. And just like Fina banned the world record swimsuits, UCI will bring some parity to track bikes, and gear for the Olympics

 

[Big GMaC]

So you're saying that Brailsford (and the Austrailian and German trainer too) are complete morons, wasting tons of money on something that doesn't make a difference? Excuse me if I have a higher opinion of them than that.

No, I am saying that putting a donkey on a GBR team Bike, or one of the Custom BH bikes will not make them a winner. I never said they were morons, so don't paraphrase me like that, I just said that the bike alone is not going to be the differentaitor. The whole way the GB / Aus (and French sprint) Programs are set-up are the differentaitors, and the equipment is part of that

 

[Cerberus]

No, I am saying that putting a donkey on a GBR team Bike, or one of the Custom BH bikes will not make them a winner. I never said they were morons, so don't paraphrase me like that, I just said that the bike alone is not going to be the differentaitor. The whole way the GB / Aus (and French sprint) Programs are set-up are the differentaitors, and the equipment is part of that

Which would be very to the point if the GBR team was riding against Donkeys, but they're not. The issue isn't whether I could win anything on a bike like that, it's a question of whether differences in bikes can be decisive in competitions between top level pros. Clearly Brailsford think they can. I don't see how the sport is impoverished by forcing a level playing field. I do however see how it is impoverished by an uneven playing field.

 

[auscyclefan94]

BRAILSFORD = whinghing pom

 

[Willy_Voet]

Maybe they should ban training centers, wind tunnel testing, personal coaches, nutritionists, etc.

Furthermore, I think the UCI needs to take a look at the budget of ProTour teams. How can a small continental outfit from Poland compete against the likes of Saxo Bank, Quickstep or Radioshack? We need parity across all disciplines of cycling; money is ruining the sport.

 

[karlboss]

Make the rules for design. Then stipulate that x number of units must be sold in a year. Should take care of ridiculous costs.

 

[Anonymous]

BRAILSFORD = whinghing pom

If you're going to trash-talk, at least learn how to spell "whinging".

 

[ak-zaaf]

If you're going to trash-talk, at least learn how to spell "whinging".

Isn't it "Whining" ?

 

[Big GMaC]

Make the rules for design. Then stipulate that x number of units must be sold in a year. Should take care of ridiculous costs.

Like the old Homogulation rules for GT Racing cars? That would be one way of doing it.

My problem with the whole bikes thing is where do you draw the line?

Voet raised above (i think / hope sarcastically but feel free to correct me) that why not ban training centre nutritionists etc? Each of those things is a way of gaining an edge, so why should bikes come under any different scrutiny?

 

[sublimit]

The UCI. Dont get me started on this.

Didnt they ban triathlon style bars on track bikes, banning Disc wheels and banning certain positions etc etc.

I'm not against a minimum weight to save the bike falling apart but anyway. I'm with Brailsford on this one.

 

[LugHugger]

The UCI really are clueless. As far as I can make out, World Champions were crowned from the following countries last week on the track (in no particular order): France, Great Britain, Lithuania, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Denmark, USA and Germany.
Out of 17 (I think) events, the leading gold medal country received 5 gold medals or under one third of the available medals.
Another 5 countries picked up medals of different colours.
So, 14 countries picked up medals at the Track World Champs last week.
I would like somebody to explain to me how this is elitist.
It seems to me that track technology does not preclude success and that this is an example of more unnecessary UCI meddling. Remember that the Olympics are once every four years and that World Champs occur every year. To ban technology to make a sport 'inclusive' once every four years is more evidence of UCI madness. To remove technology as part of competitive advantage is more regression towards the mediocre.

 

[fatandfast]

Like other have said UCI is clueless. Start f-cking with Trek, Specialized, Giro, Bell and other heavy hitters and your funding will go in the tank. We tried all this IROC style stuff where everybody has the exact same equipment,people enjoyed watching paint dry more. Sailing and America's cup is another example of a companies technology and money being thrown at a sport. They should go back in time where there are no Pros at the amateur worlds,back in the time where countries colors and flags on the uniforms and helmets not some huge "Lotto" sign on a racers kit. Go back to the 5cm rule no logo bigger. Old rules would have had UVEX getting half the skiers DQ'd in the Olympics.

 

[Monty Dog]

If the UCI seriously want to redress the balance regarding investment in track cycling, then surely the building of state-of-the-art indoor tracks blows any 'kit' budget into the stratosphere! The thing that has made the difference in the UK is full-time access to dedicated facilities. Besides, some of the leading edge research into materials and technology comes from industry sponsorship i.e access to people and facilities - these are not paid for.

 

[FKLance]

Didnt they ban triathlon style bars on track bikes, banning Disc wheels and banning certain positions etc etc.

Oh come on now.

I'm in favor of the UCI on the bike regs. Usually they mean well. Disc wheels at the front, the extreme positions are all safety risks and against the spirit of the sport. What if someone died holding a completely stupid position in a time trial, or riding a 4 kg bike that broke apart while going 70kmh?

This is cycling for gods sake, not F1. Amateurs can ride whatever the hell they want and still some of them complain about the 6.8 rule..

But as I understand, the UCI have not enforced all the rules actively enough. the rules say you have to ride bikes that can be bought, so how can team GBR make their own custom bikes?

 

[LugHugger]

are discs banned on the front? does that rule apply to road/outdoor events only where wind shear can influence steering? as to somebody dying in a tuck/aero position, the reason that these positions are banned is not for safety, it's because some suit at the UCI wants to flex their trumped up little branch of power or because, as in graham obree's case, your face/bike didn't fit and you were prepared to tell the UCI to go f*ck themselves.
what pat macquaid conveniently forgot or was too stupid to appreciate was that over half of the gold medals at the track last week were not won by Australia, Great Britain or Germany. the man is a f*cking cretin.

 

[Dundee]

I’m with Brailsford.

R&D spent on Track bikes is a fraction of R&D cost of Road/TT bikes.

Track success is a combination of things, not least of all is a nations mind set. Track is ingrained in the culture of some Countries, it is part of every day racing. Those with a tradition in track tend to go well in track on a world stage because their countries are set up to support youth through to elite track competition.

When you talk about cost, the best BT is still less that the cost of a Look, yet I see no mention of the French.

You only need to look at emerging Track Nations like China to realize it is not about the bike.

Keep weight and basic design rules, leave R&D to the manufactures.