Power meters - should they be allowed in pro cycling?

[42x16ss]

Gregory James LeMond, the universally revered three time
winner of the Tour de France, called for compulsory power
meters not that long ago.

That was to monitor rider performances for clinic reasons - not racing.

I have no problem with power meters when they are used for data collection and monitoring in a race, just as long as riders aren't able to simply sit and ride by the numbers. Cover the power reading with some tape like Phinney did at Roubaix this year.

 

[King Boonen]

*Long ridiculous rant about Sky*

Thanks for making my point for me.


It's a complete fallacy that power meters have stopped attacks. What has stopped them can't be discussed in this forum.

 

[nick101]

Hhhmmm but you can't actually prove that sky's tempo isn't the reason for attacks not working. With Us Postal using the same tactic of stifling attacks and setting Armstrong up, during that era that was a similar problem, just not as bad for the obvious reason plus they didn't rely on exact data which made their tactic slightly more difficult to implement. Those who managed to beat the "sky tactic" were a few unique riders like pantani.
Obviously riders aren't fully fit atm as they're still trying to perfectly time their build up to the tour so their attacks aren't going to be as good. Most of their attacks like contador's in the dauphine stage froome won are more about testing their legs rather than actually beating sky and winning.
If sky wasn't to set their power-based tempo just once, then we may know whether that was the reason or not, but it can't be proven unless sky releases its stranglehold on the race. Until then we have to rely on what all non-sky riders say vs. sky riders

 

[Arnout]

The reason why people are complaining about power meters is their use to set a tempo which prevents attacks. If team sky actually allowed attacks to work and froome chased them down more, there wouldn't be this problem. Without power meters, team sky wouldn't rely on putting out a specific wattage or watts/kg like we have seen, it'd be more about feel which would allow more attacks. Even with US Postal, attacks actually worked. Taking away the access to data like power in a race leads to more exciting and aggressive racing. It's very difficult to try and put out an exact power like team sky do without referring to a power meter even for trained riders.
Sure riders are trained to do tempo at a specific power but without something to refer to, the ability to hold that exact pre-determined wattage becomes very difficult indeed. This leaves riders more susceptible to outside factors which isn't the case with power meters. The riders in sky are essentially remote controlled robots from inside the team car.

Tirreno Adriatico was the perfect example of the (ab)use of power meters. Uran and Henao were blatantly sitting at a pre determined power, you could tell by their calculated efforts, monotonous speed and the occasional glance at the SRM. If they were merely setting tempo, they wouldn't have to look at their SRM's, set such an unvaried speed, or ignore attacks. Nibali, Contador and all the riders there have confirmed that's what was happening and the team sky domestiques have far from denied this also.

With sprint teams they actually work to chase down breaks for their sprinters, not necessarily prevent attacks. Whereas Sky is all about ignoring breaks and riding at a specific power until the final km and hoping that froome is the only rider not tired.

For me its not even the reason you give in the first sentence.

Give me one good reason, why should a cyclist have help in determining how much effort he is giving at any moment in time? Isn't that ability not the core of the sport? Cycling is a sport, right, and not a technological show...

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Even with US Postal, attacks actually worked.

And USPS/Disco* also dominated stages in a similar manner many many times. Didn't hear people going on about their SRMs as being the root of all evil, nor the ones on all Team Telekom's bikes. Or Phonak's Powertaps.

Power meters are a red herring. It's up to other teams to develop successful strategies to counter another successful team's race tactics. Happens in all sports.

Maybe, just maybe, they could actually learn something from the data on ways they might be able to do that ;-)


As an aside:
2005: list of some races with live SRM data telemetry (scroll down):
http://www.cyclingfans.com/arc08-18-05-09-12-05.html


* Interview with Armstrong - comment on SRM data:

What about releasing the results of your physical tests, your power output, your watts per kilo, in the interests of transparency?
The idea is to do that. I’ve not been very good in the past at downloading my SRM data. I read it real time.

OK, it's all his fault

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Cycling is a sport, right, and not a technological show...

seems exactly like a technological show to me. a large part of the reason pro cycling exists is to sell bike tech (and other stuff).

this is pro cycling, not sport.

 

[Arnout]

seems exactly like a technological show to me. a large part of the reason pro cycling exists is to sell bike tech (and other stuff).

this is pro cycling, not sport.

Oh come on, all that bike development. That's basically bull**** and marketing rubbish. Apparently, compared to the 50s, only a few percent of the increase in speeds in races can be attributed to improved bike design. The only thing where bike tech may have helped is in time trials, but returns on that also have since long diminished.

 

[Pricey_sky]

For me its not even the reason you give in the first sentence.

Give me one good reason, why should a cyclist have help in determining how much effort he is giving at any moment in time? Isn't that ability not the core of the sport? Cycling is a sport, right, and not a technological show...

I see you point however technology is part and parcel of sport now, you cant get away from that. In cricket bowlers and coaches spend hours behind computers finding ways to get batsmen out. Batsmen spend time finding out how to improve by looking at thousands of deliveries they face. In F1 many races are won by who does the best job of calculating things behind the pit wall.

These are 2 examples, there are many examples across lots of sports but I dont want to bore you with a big essay.

 

[Arnout]

I see you point however technology is part and parcel of sport now, you cant get away from that. In cricket bowlers and coaches spend hours behind computers finding ways to get batsmen out. Batsmen spend time finding out how to improve by looking at thousands of deliveries they face. In F1 many races are won by who does the best job of calculating things behind the pit wall.

These are 2 examples, there are many examples across lots of sports but I dont want to bore you with a big essay.

Well, F1 is of course a vastly different sport from cycling: technology is (or used to be?) at the core of the sport.

I see your point about using data and what not to improve. I'm also not talking about wind tunnel testing for time trials, and all the VO2max test cyclists do these days. That's fine with me. However, I don't think things like that should be carried into races.

 

[nick101]

yes the benefits of the technology are "neglible" but again the marginal gains theory applies. Everyone is trying to get a marginal gain and technology is aiding this. Bike designs are based on extremely complicated computer programmes (The new BMC had millions of possible iterations), all the tt testing in wind tunnels is to shave that extra second off, the plausibility of a breakaway working heavily relies on calculations etc etc etc. While the benefits may be neglible, it's making racing more robotic as we are seeing with sky.

The constant tempo tactic has very few loopholes. Currently no one is able to out smart that tactic unless the stars align like with nibali at the tirreno.

US postal or T- Mobile didn't need power meters, they had other means to cause the "sky tactic" which you probably already know.

 

[manafana]

I would allow them on the condition that data is open to the public.

i agree with this, power data should be released with in 7 days of the race of any world tour races.

 

[Carstenbf]

Yes.

/thread

 

[veji11]

I think they should be banned, just like the "oreillettes". Banned as in the ability for the riders to have access to the data during the race, not the ability to record the data for training purposes.

My view is that the priority of professionnal cycling should be to put the rider back at the very centre of the sport. Cycling is with Boxing historically one of the two popular sports centered on the two key notions of pain and combat.
- Pain because just as in Boxing where it is about enduring hits, in cycling it is about enduring the gruelling climbs, the 20 days of racing in a row, the conditions, etc...
- Combat because in cycling the riders are all together on the road, they can touch each other and they fight and try to defeat each other to arrive first. You "punch" the other riders with your accelerations, you look at them, you can almost smell them and in the end the objective is to defeat them, make them accept your superiority.

This is what made the legend of cycling, The famous rides and duels, it is the drama, the Anquetil/Poulidor, the Coppi/Bartali, the Merckx against all, the Lemond/Fignon etc...

The key there is the humanity of the riders. they Suffer, you see them suffer, suddenly even the best champ is stuck on the road. If the word wasn't overused I would say the essence of pro cycling is promothean : The champion rises above the other, but ultimately he is called back to earth and defeated, by age or a new champion. One of the reasons Armstrong is so hated by cycling fans, beyond his doping and mafiosi attitude, is because he betrayed that drama by winning and then leaving on his own terms. Compare that with Indurain who accepted his destiny and lost. Defeat as much as victory is part of what a cyclist champion is. Rob us of the defeat and we feel cheated. Had Armstrong lost the 2003 tour he would be a lot less hated.

Anyway my point is that the humanity and the rider should be at the heart of the sport. Make it again about riders, together on the road and cut from everything else. This means no radios, no access to SRM or Heart monitoring data while in race, Just the rider, his bike, his teammates and his rivals, all on the same road.

 

[nick101]

yes that's completely correct . It should be froome vs. contador and not sky vs. the rest, with froome hiding behind sky
btw what happened in the 03 tour?? Slightly too early for me to remember what Armstrong did

 

[SKSemtex]

I do not think the riders should be in the center. It is the show. So the audience should be in the center if the cycling wants to survive or compete in future with other shows.
It means to do everything possible to increase the attractiveness of the sport. If banning of power meters can only help a little, just do it. The same for radios. Nobody is interested in watching borgs controlled from "tower".

I agree with the statment that people want to see cyclists suffering. They want to see the "blood, sweat and tears", they want to see their heros to go over their limits and over the limits of their rivals.

 

[veji11]

I do not think the riders should be in the center. It is the show. So the audience should be in the center if the cycling wants to survive or compete in future with other shows.
It means to do everything possible to increase the attractiveness of the sport. If banning of power meters can only help a little, just do it. The same for radios. Nobody is interested in watching borgs controlled from "tower".

I agree with the statment that people want to see cyclists suffering. They want to see the "blood, sweat and tears", they want to see their heros to go over their limits and over the limits of their rivals.

Well as you put it, what the audience wants it for the rider to be the centre, for the suffering and the duelling to be the core. The way I see it this is "putting the rider at the centre of the sport", if you want a call it "putting the audience at the centre" fair enough.

My point is that the more room we make for the human factor and limit the other parameters (the technology), the better. Cycling is not formula one where the audience is there mainly for the cars. Here the audience isn't there for the SRM or the Trek bike, what they want to see is the riders, ergo put the riders back at the forefront.

 

[nick101]

By putting the riders at the centre, you are putting the audience also at the centre as an unintended consequence, by encouraging exciting racing. Cycling first and foremost is a sport and not a "show". If you want a show watch a soap opera or movie. A show involves actors and has a predetermined script. The tour this year has a predetermined script with sky the author.

Do you think riders like mercx or pantani worried about marginal gains or exact power figures like sky is doing? They let their legs do the talking. That's what I've been trying to say about Foome. Contador let his legs do the talking at Vebier.
Again commercialisation of races like the tour takes away from the actual racing and makes it more of a farce with big name sponsors rather than purely racing and attacking as used to be the case. Races that I consider more unpredictable and exciting are not focussed on creating a "show" for viewers as such and have very few big name sponsors. Ever since the tour started it has been a race. The commercialisation of the tour has resulted in it becoming a "show".

 

[DominicDecoco]

Guess it wouldn't hurt to try a smaller stage race without them.

I reckon the riders would be even more careful not to go into red not having the numbers to support you.

 

[Afrank]

Feel free to dig up the myriad of threads bemoaning power meters from before Sky joined the peloton then. I won't hold my breath though.

Sky's example demonstrate how they can be used to shut down other racing. But power meters, while it is not as visible as Sky's use of them, are also used by other riders to determine if they should attack or sit on. With power meters if a rider see's they are already going close to their max they may decide not to attack not wanting to blow themselves up. Without them, that rider may decide to go for it anyways and end up giving us a great show.

So while Sky's use of them is the most obvious example of why they should be banned, the problem does not only lie with Sky's use. But rather how they can be used by the whole of the peloton.

 

[icefire]

i agree with this, power data should be released with in 7 days of the race of any world tour races.

Why wait 7 days? It should be broadcasted live for a selected set of riders.

 

[gjb483]

For me its not even the reason you give in the first sentence.

Give me one good reason, why should a cyclist have help in determining how much effort he is giving at any moment in time? Isn't that ability not the core of the sport? Cycling is a sport, right, and not a technological show...

Professional cycling is very much a technological show. If it wasn't, we'd still be riding around 15kg bikes, bolt on wheels with two gears and caged pedals...

 

[Pippo_San]

Cycling already had its era of mostly unrestricted innovation. Check out all the bizarro time trial bikes that were used in the 90s. Eventually rules were put in place to keep the sport a competition between riders rather than a competition between engineers.

I find it quite hilarious, especially considering the way UCI covered many doping scandals in the past, making it more a competition between doctors than anything else.
Or between money? Anyway that's the point.

Frankly it would've been a good show to see real differences between the tech used. Maybe that would've changed also the impact of doping itself.
And we, as cyclists and riders and customers ourselves, would've probably gained much more.

 

[M Sport]

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?

I disagree but using your F1 analogy I would like to see the data become part of the broadcast package, much like the rev counter and telemetry data, etc that gets broadcast from other sports. Make it public so the watts data is no secret.

 

[Arnout]

I disagree but using your F1 analogy I would like to see the data become part of the broadcast package, much like the rev counter and telemetry data, etc that gets broadcast from other sports. Make it public so the watts data is no secret.

The rev counter in F1 broadcasts is just there for the show, it's not connected to the car. Listen carefully next time and you will see it shifting at different moments than the actual car.

Things like public radio messages would be interesting, but I doubt that is technically possible.

 

[King Boonen]

The way UCI handles the technological advancements in cycling is ridiculous at best.

its weight (no less than 6.8 kg...WHY FFS?!?!)

I actually agree with this rule. It's to stop manufacturers taking undue risks with bike design, needlessly thinning out the tube walls to shave weight in a race to the bottom. Remember, the rules stipulate that the bikes must be available to the public and thinner, lighter bikes are more likely to crack and brake causing accidents and reducing participation.

I see it as akin to when motorcycle manufacturers agreed to stop the speed wars. It's a safety issue. What I'd actually like to see is the rules changed to stop people weighting the bikes with unnecessary parts. It should be on or over the minimum limit based on only parts that are required. (I know they could start using heavy bottle cages and things so i think the weight limit should have to be met based on frame, group-set and wheel-set).

It also has a leveling effect. Image if one team had bikes from a manufacturer with a patent on a new material that reduced frame weights to a couple of hundred grams but maintained stiffness? It really would end up just about the technology.