Power meters: is Quintana right that they should be banned?

[veji11]

Re:

I have no problem with power meters, same as with heart monitors. Not sure how I feel about e-shifting, however. I like my bikes mechanical, not electronic.

You can race on "data" or you can race on "feelings." Doesn't matter to me.

Agree that timing comes across as a bit petty given that Froome is looking dangerous as ever. Kind of weak effort to psych him out. Probably won't work.

Over controled races are structural issue in modern cycling, who cares about timing, having debates on how to make racing more spectacular again is positive !

 

[King Boonen]

Go back to individual riders, steel, fixed wheel bikes and no support.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

Power meters are there for everyone to use. If some riders/teams don't know how to use them properly the problem isn't related to technology, but lack of investment and/or will to know how to use them.

Evolution and adaptation to it is the key to success, not stagnation.

But the only reason why cycling still is interesting is because most riders "don't know how to use it". Imagine everyone would calculate his perfect pace on a climb and then TT up every mountain. Do you really want to see that?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Nairo: "let's ban stuff I don't like/understand how to use but my competitor does".

I wonder what Nairo's power meter sponsor thinks of this?

This is his bike by the way, complete with power meter:

http://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/tour-de-france/nairo-quintanas-canyon-ultimate-cf-slx-is-ready-to-climb/slide/2

All it suggests to me is Nairo is focused on the wrong things, as are those that think measuring power is somehow making a difference to the way race strategies and tactics play out.

They are meters, not motors. You either have the watts or you don't. That's what determines who wins the W/kg war, not the measurement of it.

It's kind of ironic that the clinic mob want all the power data made public, and another mob want it all banned.


Not attacking through a safety neutral is what should be banned Nairo, not power meters

Well obviously Nairo is happy to forgo his power meter. Lots of straw men in your post.

No-one is asking for power meters to be taken completely out of the sport, just that the numbers will not be visible to riders or their team during a race.

The OP and the question posed by Quintana is whether they should be banned in racing. Preventing a rider from viewing live data is not the same thing, so that deals with that supposed strawman.

The beauty of road racing is in the tactics, the unpredictability, the bluffing and the courageous attacks. Power meters diminsh all of these, and therefore there is no good argument for them to remain in racing. Even time trials would become a lot more interesting without power meters.

This sounds like opinion without factual basis.

Bike racers/teams are there to win bike races. Entertainment is merely a side effect of that primary purpose. They are also there to represent their sponsors (they are after all mobile billboards). Hence I think it's an entirely valid question to ask what their power meter sponsor thinks?

One way of improving entertainment value is to bring us better data on what's going on with riders via televised telemetry, including power data.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

...
One way of improving entertainment value is to bring us better data on what's going on with riders via televised telemetry, including power data.

That would bore the hell out of me to be honest.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I'm guessing Greipel doesn't agree. Pic from today:

 

[veji11]

Re: Re:

...
One way of improving entertainment value is to bring us better data on what's going on with riders via televised telemetry, including power data.

That would bore the hell out of me to be honest.

Plus it would make cycling even more like some sort of Formula one which is the opposite of what is needed ! More mystery, more uncertainty, more focus on the individual riders themselves, less on the team, the data, the mechanical...

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

...
One way of improving entertainment value is to bring us better data on what's going on with riders via televised telemetry, including power data.

That would bore the hell out of me to be honest.

Plus it would make cycling even more like some sort of Formula one which is the opposite of what is needed ! More mystery, more uncertainty, more focus on the individual riders themselves, less on the team, the data, the mechanical...

Join my fixed wheel campaign

 

[veji11]

Re: Re:

...
One way of improving entertainment value is to bring us better data on what's going on with riders via televised telemetry, including power data.

That would bore the hell out of me to be honest.

Plus it would make cycling even more like some sort of Formula one which is the opposite of what is needed ! More mystery, more uncertainty, more focus on the individual riders themselves, less on the team, the data, the mechanical...

Join my fixed wheel campaign

You might be overdoing a tad there though... :razz:

 

[Bolder]

Interesting discussion. We all seem to agree that racing is less exciting than "back in the day." (Otherwise known as when we first became fans...).

But what are the causes? I'd argue: Team radios, data-based training and racing; doping; and the general overprofessionalization and overcommercialization of the sport that tends to produce generic riders and races. But all those factors are somewhat interrelated.

I'm trying to think of what sports have become more interesting in the past 30 years. Haven't come up with any. So I think cycling would have to radically change in a way that probably isn't possible given the current team/sponsorship structure.

Counterintuitively, shorter races or circuit races would probably have the most effect for the least amount of effort. Better for the fans, better for the riders, fewer team tactics. Can you imaging 2-hour TdF stages that go full gas from the start? What if you just had a mountain stage that was 3 cols in a row? I'd watch the hell out of that, as they say.

 

[SeriousSam]

Re: Re:

This sounds like opinion without factual basis.

Bike racers/teams are there to win bike races. Entertainment is merely a side effect of that primary purpose. They are also there to represent their sponsors (they are after all mobile billboards). Hence I think it's an entirely valid question to ask what their power meter sponsor thinks?

One way of improving entertainment value is to bring us better data on what's going on with riders via televised telemetry, including power data.

Entertainment is more than just a side effect. It's long been the raison d'etre of modern sport.

One way of improving entertainment value is to bring us better data on what's going on with riders via televised telemetry, including power data.

Something like the leaked Froome data on Ventoux, synchronised with the TV coverage? I'd approve.

Sadly, sports analytics doesn't seem to be very popular with European audiences. Though with strava and more people becoming interested with measuring performance, that might change.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

...
One way of improving entertainment value is to bring us better data on what's going on with riders via televised telemetry, including power data.

That would bore the hell out of me to be honest.

Plus it would make cycling even more like some sort of Formula one which is the opposite of what is needed ! More mystery, more uncertainty, more focus on the individual riders themselves, less on the team, the data, the mechanical...

Join my fixed wheel campaign

You might be overdoing a tad there though... :razz:

I'm not so sure... Some of the best racing you'll see is the Red Hook Crit. It's down to human power, gear selection and tactics.

Ok, I know I'm going too far but I'll still try make a cogent argument...

Cycling is fast becoming a rich mans, technological game. On a simple Sunday club run I see most riders on bikes worth £3000+ (32000000 kips) and some on what must be £6-8000 or more. Carbon fibre everywhere, deep-dish wheels on an average 28 kph ride, in Glaswegian weather. Electronic shifting and 22+ gears when one works fine (I know because that's exactly what I'm riding in the group). Those recent Trek frames with the little flaps that allow the direct mount calipers to pass the headtube are just a step to far for me, it's becoming ridiculous. And that's just the bikes. There's aero helmets, velotoze shoe covers, power meters and everything out.

I rode the Cavendish Sportive at the weekend. On the start line I looked across and someone was in a skinsuit!!! A bloody skinsuit to ride a Sportive!! It's insane and it's completely turning me off the sport as a sport. Even if we discount that fella there were still a multitude of FPKW (pm for translation...) on team bikes (one on a Wiggins Pinarello and in full Wiggins kit, but built up with 105 ) talking about their bikes. I have no problem with people spending their money on what they want, but my frustration was no-one was talking about the ride, even when I tried to engage them. It was all about gear selection, speeds and times, why they were using specific wheels etc. That's not what cycling is about for me, when we talk about riding bikes we should be talking about where we are going, not the thing underneath us.

I actually applaud the UCI for their bike rules, I think they are trying to fight against the sciencification of bike design and riding, I just think they don't go far enough. In an ideal world we would have standardised bikes (steel tubes pretty much force this allowing only geometry tweeks) and standardised kit, ensuring that what we are seeing is the difference between two humans, not two humans and their bank balance. I understand that can't happen, cycling needs sponsors and that means bikes and bike kit, but I can dream.


And don't get me started on TTs...

 

[el chava]

Re: Re:

I actually applaud the UCI for their bike rules, I think they are trying to fight against the sciencification of bike design and riding, I just think they don't go far enough. In an ideal world we would have standardised bikes (steel tubes pretty much force this allowing only geometry tweeks) and standardised kit, ensuring that what we are seeing is the difference between two humans, not two humans and their bank balance. I understand that can't happen, cycling needs sponsors and that means bikes and bike kit, but I can dream.

+1 on everything. But I don't even know how much bicycling manufactures rely on Pro Cycling, it's not that they are the only sponsors nowadays. Somebody should do an analysis of that.

Hell, us reactionaries need a new Henri Desgrange.

Sorry for semi-derailing.

 

[el chava]

Re: Re:

Bike racers/teams are there to win bike races. Entertainment is merely a side effect of that primary purpose. They are also there to represent their sponsors (they are after all mobile billboards). Hence I think it's an entirely valid question to ask what their power meter sponsor thinks?

One way of improving entertainment value is to bring us better data on what's going on with riders via televised telemetry, including power data.

The Tour was never primarily about winning the race, it was a pure commercial event made to sell more newspapers (and bikes). Nowadays maybe powermeters as well (but who on earth buys these things?). But if the entertainment level goes down, so goes the audience interest. And if that is the fault of powermeters they must go (I am not sure they are the reason, though).

And how can you say that telemetry would be part of the cycling entertainment for the ordinary viewer?
Cycling is not (only) a science experiment. Not yet anyway.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

I actually applaud the UCI for their bike rules, I think they are trying to fight against the sciencification of bike design and riding, I just think they don't go far enough. In an ideal world we would have standardised bikes (steel tubes pretty much force this allowing only geometry tweeks) and standardised kit, ensuring that what we are seeing is the difference between two humans, not two humans and their bank balance. I understand that can't happen, cycling needs sponsors and that means bikes and bike kit, but I can dream.

+1 on everything. But I don't even know how much bicycling manufactures rely on Pro Cycling, it's not that they are the only sponsors nowadays. Somebody should do an analysis of that.

Hell, us reactionaries need a new Henri Desgrange.

Sorry for semi-derailing.

I don't think it's derailing, power meter suppliers are big sponsors in Pro Cycling and arguably it's their only shop window, seems very relevant.

I'm pretty sure bike manufacturers rely almost 100% on pro cycling for their advertising if they are involved, it's pretty much their only shop window for race bikes. Power meter producers also rely on it, although they are generally marketed as training devices, and it obviously works, at least from my experience of club riding. There are power meters turning up on loads of peoples bikes who hardly race, some never race.

I use that famous Henri Desgrange quote as my email signature I love the purity of fixed wheel riding, it truly is you against the conditions.

 

[B_Ugli]

Re: Power meters: is Quintana right that they should be bann

Looks very much a power meter in use here

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/nairo-quintanas-tour-de-france-canyon-ultimate-cf-slx-1/

So he thinks power meters should be banned but he is happy to use one..................WTF???

 

[samhocking]

Re: Power meters: is Quintana right that they should be bann

The obvious statement to also make is that riding to power up a mountain is only useful while you have teammates to shelter behind. As soon as you're on your own, the increased overall climbing rate achieved by smoothing out your effort with a power meter gets heavily negated once your in the wind. I would say apart from the very steepest of climbs or those with favourable tail winds, the maths doesn't work, so to ride faster you must attack or wear down your rivals with your team anyway.

 

[Winnats]

Re: Re:

I'm not so sure... Some of the best racing you'll see is the Red Hook Crit. It's down to human power, gear selection and tactics.

Ok, I know I'm going too far but I'll still try make a cogent argument...

Cycling is fast becoming a rich mans, technological game. On a simple Sunday club run I see most riders on bikes worth £3000+ (32000000 kips) and some on what must be £6-8000 or more. Carbon fibre everywhere, deep-dish wheels on an average 28 kph ride, in Glaswegian weather. Electronic shifting and 22+ gears when one works fine (I know because that's exactly what I'm riding in the group). Those recent Trek frames with the little flaps that allow the direct mount calipers to pass the headtube are just a step to far for me, it's becoming ridiculous. And that's just the bikes. There's aero helmets, velotoze shoe covers, power meters and everything out.

I rode the Cavendish Sportive at the weekend. On the start line I looked across and someone was in a skinsuit!!! A bloody skinsuit to ride a Sportive!! It's insane and it's completely turning me off the sport as a sport. Even if we discount that fella there were still a multitude of FPKW (pm for translation...) on team bikes (one on a Wiggins Pinarello and in full Wiggins kit, but built up with 105 ) talking about their bikes. I have no problem with people spending their money on what they want, but my frustration was no-one was talking about the ride, even when I tried to engage them. It was all about gear selection, speeds and times, why they were using specific wheels etc. That's not what cycling is about for me, when we talk about riding bikes we should be talking about where we are going, not the thing underneath us.

I actually applaud the UCI for their bike rules, I think they are trying to fight against the sciencification of bike design and riding, I just think they don't go far enough. In an ideal world we would have standardised bikes (steel tubes pretty much force this allowing only geometry tweeks) and standardised kit, ensuring that what we are seeing is the difference between two humans, not two humans and their bank balance. I understand that can't happen, cycling needs sponsors and that means bikes and bike kit, but I can dream.


And don't get me started on TTs...

Snap. The view coming round onto Panorama Walk was to die for.

Saw the 'Wiggins' guy. And some fella went past me like I was stood still (which I almost was, at about 12%) in a Dimension Data top.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

I actually applaud the UCI for their bike rules, I think they are trying to fight against the sciencification of bike design and riding, I just think they don't go far enough. In an ideal world we would have standardised bikes (steel tubes pretty much force this allowing only geometry tweeks) and standardised kit, ensuring that what we are seeing is the difference between two humans, not two humans and their bank balance. I understand that can't happen, cycling needs sponsors and that means bikes and bike kit, but I can dream.

+1 on everything. But I don't even know how much bicycling manufactures rely on Pro Cycling, it's not that they are the only sponsors nowadays. Somebody should do an analysis of that.

Hell, us reactionaries need a new Henri Desgrange.

Sorry for semi-derailing.

The relationship is the other way round, i.e. it's cycling that relies on the bike manufacturers for their support.

Bike companies were dominant up until the 1960s and it represented an important means of mass exposure, however around that time many could no longer afford to continue and other industries started to fund teams, eventually becoming dominant.

Over the last decade however the sponsorship of teams has shifted back away from corporate brands to cycling bike brands again, along with some rich boys fulfilling their hobby, and I'm not sure that's a good trend. Corporate sponsors tend to be domestic companies mostly.

International blue chip companies don't see cycling teams as a good safe marketing bet. Too many risks, media (esp TV) exposure is not coordinated at all, events have limited market exposure beyond domestic market as a means of reaching wider audiences (just look at TV ratings in massive markets like Germany or the US, if you can find a station to watch it on).

Only 3 big corporations sponsor teams - Sky / Murdoch, Dimension Data, and Orica. Corporates if they do get involved prefer to sponsor events rather than teams. It's generally a safer bet. There are 5 teams with bike manufacturers as major naming rights sponsor: BMC, Trek, Merida, Cannondale and Giant.

Domestic gambling is the next biggest sector represented, which sort of fills the gaps left by the prohibition on tobacco and alcohol advertising.

In any case, sponsorship monies in cycling are hard to get, and of pretty limited scope relative to many professional sports (all football codes, golf, basketball, baseball, cricket which have big TV exposure and rights monies). When I see bike manufacturers dominating pro team sponsorship, it tells me there is a growing problem with attracting interest from the big end of town.

Yep, it's thread drift, but really, power meters are not the source of entertainment evil. There are far bigger issues in play than a few numbers on a bike rider's screen.

 

[Davesta]

Re: Re:

Cycling is fast becoming a rich mans, technological game. On a simple Sunday club run I see most riders on bikes worth £3000+ (32000000 kips) and some on what must be £6-8000 or more. Carbon fibre everywhere, deep-dish wheels on an average 28 kph ride, in Glaswegian weather. Electronic shifting and 22+ gears when one works fine (I know because that's exactly what I'm riding in the group). Those recent Trek frames with the little flaps that allow the direct mount calipers to pass the headtube are just a step to far for me, it's becoming ridiculous. And that's just the bikes. There's aero helmets, velotoze shoe covers, power meters and everything out.

I rode the Cavendish Sportive at the weekend. On the start line I looked across and someone was in a skinsuit!!! A bloody skinsuit to ride a Sportive!! It's insane and it's completely turning me off the sport as a sport. Even if we discount that fella there were still a multitude of FPKW (pm for translation...) on team bikes (one on a Wiggins Pinarello and in full Wiggins kit, but built up with 105 ) talking about their bikes. I have no problem with people spending their money on what they want, but my frustration was no-one was talking about the ride, even when I tried to engage them. It was all about gear selection, speeds and times, why they were using specific wheels etc. That's not what cycling is about for me, when we talk about riding bikes we should be talking about where we are going, not the thing underneath us.

Makes me think of this - http://www.lavelocita.cc/opinion-page/data-disconnection
:lol:

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Power meters: is Quintana right that they should be bann

Looks very much a power meter in use here

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/nairo-quintanas-tour-de-france-canyon-ultimate-cf-slx-1/

So he thinks power meters should be banned but he is happy to use one..................WTF???

As stated before, he is willing to give it up. Just like other top riders that use it as well.

Something must have happened to Quintana because he was known for not using power meters. I guess the coaches and technical support convinced him that as a top contender he had to use in order to get an edge. Maybe he learned and sees what the benefit is but in some cases, like the Sky team during the Tour de France, it could be a detriment to the race. Last Monday worked out the other way around. I made for a good race. Although I have to believe Froome in this case that he was riding more on feelings and trying to be careful not to go into red because you could visibly see that he was accelerating and decelerating all the time. Bottom line if you are going to do that you still need the legs to do it. Same goes for the Sky team.

my 2 cents.

 

[Davesta]

Re: Power meters: is Quintana right that they should be bann

I quite like the idea of the 'track rule' being applied to road races - i.e. you can use a powermeter, but the head unit must be out of sight (usually kept under the saddle).

I use a power meter when racing, but I will often change my screen settings, such that I cannot see my power data; only time, speed, distance & heart rate. I find I often race better that way, as the power meter is then not a distraction and I concentrate better on the race dynamics.

However, I don't think that banning power meters will have the effect on pro racing that many seem to desire - Sky didn't ride up mountains with Poels, Thomas & Henao on the front because they had power meters. They rode with them on the front because they were 3 of the strongest riders in the race and they were utilised with exactly that purpose.
Any rider with enough experience knows what a threshold effort feels like, especially pros. They're not gonna suddenly get their pacing wrong and blow up after 5 minutes, just because they don't have numbers to look at. Taking away power meters might mean that they go a tiny bit too hard and their turn is a couple of hundred metres shorter, but they're still gonna be asphyxiating the race in much the same style...

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Snap. The view coming round onto Panorama Walk was to die for.

Saw the 'Wiggins' guy. And some fella went past me like I was stood still (which I almost was, at about 12%) in a Dimension Data top.

I used to go fossil hunting up there when I was a kid, there are loads. Yep, was fantastic, shame about the weather on Penbarras. I didn't see Cav on the ride this year, road up a little hill with him last year but my fixed wheel can never keep up on the downhills. Was good to Steve Cummings and Matt Stephens were out too and looking at twitter it seems like they engaged a bit with other riders.

Cycling is fast becoming a rich mans, technological game. On a simple Sunday club run I see most riders on bikes worth £3000+ (32000000 kips) and some on what must be £6-8000 or more. Carbon fibre everywhere, deep-dish wheels on an average 28 kph ride, in Glaswegian weather. Electronic shifting and 22+ gears when one works fine (I know because that's exactly what I'm riding in the group). Those recent Trek frames with the little flaps that allow the direct mount calipers to pass the headtube are just a step to far for me, it's becoming ridiculous. And that's just the bikes. There's aero helmets, velotoze shoe covers, power meters and everything out.

I rode the Cavendish Sportive at the weekend. On the start line I looked across and someone was in a skinsuit!!! A bloody skinsuit to ride a Sportive!! It's insane and it's completely turning me off the sport as a sport. Even if we discount that fella there were still a multitude of FPKW (pm for translation...) on team bikes (one on a Wiggins Pinarello and in full Wiggins kit, but built up with 105 ) talking about their bikes. I have no problem with people spending their money on what they want, but my frustration was no-one was talking about the ride, even when I tried to engage them. It was all about gear selection, speeds and times, why they were using specific wheels etc. That's not what cycling is about for me, when we talk about riding bikes we should be talking about where we are going, not the thing underneath us.

Makes me think of this - http://www.lavelocita.cc/opinion-page/data-disconnection
:lol:

That's great I have considered dumping Strava at times, not done it yet though...

 

[veji11]

Re: Power meters: is Quintana right that they should be bann

Looks very much a power meter in use here

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/nairo-quintanas-tour-de-france-canyon-ultimate-cf-slx-1/

So he thinks power meters should be banned but he is happy to use one..................WTF???

How stupid a comment is that ? he plays by the rule in place, not having a power meter would be a big disadvantage in race and for data analysis later. Doesn't mean he can't oppose their presence.

If you are a pro tennis player and think that the game would be better with only one serve, does it mean you should forbid yourself from using 2 ???

 

[veji11]

Re: Power meters: is Quintana right that they should be bann

I quite like the idea of the 'track rule' being applied to road races - i.e. you can use a powermeter, but the head unit must be out of sight (usually kept under the saddle).

I use a power meter when racing, but I will often change my screen settings, such that I cannot see my power data; only time, speed, distance & heart rate. I find I often race better that way, as the power meter is then not a distraction and I concentrate better on the race dynamics.

However, I don't think that banning power meters will have the effect on pro racing that many seem to desire - Sky didn't ride up mountains with Poels, Thomas & Henao on the front because they had power meters. They rode with them on the front because they were 3 of the strongest riders in the race and they were utilised with exactly that purpose.
Any rider with enough experience knows what a threshold effort feels like, especially pros. They're not gonna suddenly get their pacing wrong and blow up after 5 minutes, just because they don't have numbers to look at. Taking away power meters might mean that they go a tiny bit too hard and their turn is a couple of hundred metres shorter, but they're still gonna be asphyxiating the race in much the same style...

true, and this is why to me even if banning power meters and earpieces are necessary and useful contributions, team reduction is also needed, ideally coupled with a form of salary cap but that seems unattainable at this stage.