- Mar 10, 2009
- 4,704
- 34
- 15,530
Disclaimer: I do not, I repeat I do not want this thread turn into a pro vs anti Sky debate. If that is going to happen, I will request closure of this topic.
Since a few years, power meters have become very common in the pro peloton, and are actively promoted as the new deal. However, are they good for cycling (which is a bit of a trivial question, as this is partly personal preference) and more importantly, are they fitting in cycling on an objective level?
What power meters do, is give an exact number on the level of effort one is giving at any moment in time. If we look back in time, this sort of information has never been available before, probably due to lack of available technology. In that sense, power meters seem to be a step forwards and I would be a Luddite family member if I wanted to ban power meters for that reason alone.
However, cycling is a sport. It is an effort of an individual in a team against other individuals in a team, over an extended distance. Hence, cycling is an endurance sport, but unlike most endurance sports, not only against time. This perfect mix between endurance and competition is probably why cycling is still getting a lot of air time on TV, even though on first eye only the last part of a race or stage is interesting to watch.
Now throw power meters into the mix. Power meters allow riders to filter out the competition, by going as fast as they can regardless of actions of competitors. Thus, the sport is (to an extent) reduced to the endurance part of cycling, where a rider pursues the optimal effort given the conditions. Regardless of what you think about the effect this has on the quality of the racing (the entertainment factor), we need to ask the question whether this is fitting in the sport? Do we not factor out a fundamental part of cycling by allowing this technology?
I've compared power meters to traction control in Formula 1 before. For a number of years, traction control (and things like launch control) were standard in Formula 1. For those among us who don't know what traction control is, there is always Wikipedia, but in short it prevents spinning of tires, meaning available engine power is optimally used, with the side effect that the car becomes less predictable (car is kept within the limits of physics). A few years ago, Formula 1 decided traction control was not in line with the spirit of the sport. Sure, it made the cars go faster (most lap records are still from 2004, which can at least be partly attributed to the availability of electronic aids), but it factored out part of the sport: the ability of the driver to keep the car near or on the limit himself was not tested anymore.
Power meters do the same thing. They make cycling more one-dimensional, more a physical test than a sport. In Formula 1, drivers became less important, in cycling, riders become less important as well, apart from their physical ability.
Thus, it is my view that power meters are detrimental to the sport of cycling, and should be banned. Do you agree, and is there a viable way to push this issue?
Since a few years, power meters have become very common in the pro peloton, and are actively promoted as the new deal. However, are they good for cycling (which is a bit of a trivial question, as this is partly personal preference) and more importantly, are they fitting in cycling on an objective level?
What power meters do, is give an exact number on the level of effort one is giving at any moment in time. If we look back in time, this sort of information has never been available before, probably due to lack of available technology. In that sense, power meters seem to be a step forwards and I would be a Luddite family member if I wanted to ban power meters for that reason alone.
However, cycling is a sport. It is an effort of an individual in a team against other individuals in a team, over an extended distance. Hence, cycling is an endurance sport, but unlike most endurance sports, not only against time. This perfect mix between endurance and competition is probably why cycling is still getting a lot of air time on TV, even though on first eye only the last part of a race or stage is interesting to watch.
Now throw power meters into the mix. Power meters allow riders to filter out the competition, by going as fast as they can regardless of actions of competitors. Thus, the sport is (to an extent) reduced to the endurance part of cycling, where a rider pursues the optimal effort given the conditions. Regardless of what you think about the effect this has on the quality of the racing (the entertainment factor), we need to ask the question whether this is fitting in the sport? Do we not factor out a fundamental part of cycling by allowing this technology?
I've compared power meters to traction control in Formula 1 before. For a number of years, traction control (and things like launch control) were standard in Formula 1. For those among us who don't know what traction control is, there is always Wikipedia, but in short it prevents spinning of tires, meaning available engine power is optimally used, with the side effect that the car becomes less predictable (car is kept within the limits of physics). A few years ago, Formula 1 decided traction control was not in line with the spirit of the sport. Sure, it made the cars go faster (most lap records are still from 2004, which can at least be partly attributed to the availability of electronic aids), but it factored out part of the sport: the ability of the driver to keep the car near or on the limit himself was not tested anymore.
Power meters do the same thing. They make cycling more one-dimensional, more a physical test than a sport. In Formula 1, drivers became less important, in cycling, riders become less important as well, apart from their physical ability.
Thus, it is my view that power meters are detrimental to the sport of cycling, and should be banned. Do you agree, and is there a viable way to push this issue?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram