Race Radios: Better Olympic races without?

[kingsouth]

I think the compromise is to allow one rider per team to have a radio. That way a DS can still have some communication with the team without having such instant control over every riders actions.

 

[B_Ugli]

I think had Cavendish won there wouldnt even be a discussion about radios.

The real discussion is about knowing how to read up on a race route, work out a strategy and adapt that strategy as the race unfolds.

Whilst Vino is from the "old school" in terms of his riding style and other stuff, and although I am not a fan of his he read the race perfectly, did his homework on what twists and turns would make good attacking opportunities on the run in and executed his plan to perfection.

On the other hand Sky (and others) treated it like any other race but approached it as if they would be having earpieces and simply didnt do their homework (complacent). They had no evolving strategy other than plan (a), didnt factor in the whole fast (mostly downhil run in), and came away with nothing as a result. A better strategy for them would have been to have a man in each move and two men in each move towards the end. Somebody like Stannard could have pulled of a Vino type move had he been in that lead group but the "Cav or bust" strategy was utter toilet.

 

[Boeing]

I think the compromise is to allow one rider per team to have a radio. That way a DS can still have some communication with the team without having such instant control over every riders actions.

Kind of like a quarterback in the NFL.


I like this idea. I think Moninger had this suggestion at Le Tour too.

If rider abandons its SOL on that stage. subsequent stages radio moves to next rider of choice


With fewer riders and one radio however it might be easier to identify who will break stage to stage and less likely to get away. So is that any different than reeling a break in?

Just a thought

 

[Oldman]

I think the compromise is to allow one rider per team to have a radio. That way a DS can still have some communication with the team without having such instant control over every riders actions.

This makes some sense if they don't reduce the number of riders. Access back to cars and getting reliable time gap information should be part of the game and would be safe. It's the roborider feature that has sucked much of the drama out of the sport. Add that micro-race management to the microscopic live race reports and even the most ardent fan is falling asleep

 

[Angliru]

I think the compromise is to allow one rider per team to have a radio. That way a DS can still have some communication with the team without having such instant control over every riders actions.

Don't you think that it's more important to have every rider with radio access to race radio/officals to inform/warn them of any potential hazards that may potentially threaten their safety?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The time gap was given by the moto official frequently enough for us not to worry...I really don't understand the call for radio bans. It's supposed to make things more exiting by withholding information from the riders? That just seems odd to me. Why not get rid anything that helps riders know what is happening during the race?

You mean other than their own intellect? I thus respectfully disagree with your assertion.

Access back to cars and getting reliable time gap information should be part of the game and would be safe.

Again, I ask why do riders need to know time gaps? Why should reliable time gap information be part of the game, as you say? Be that from radio, team cars, or moto? Does giving time gaps, or instant (or near instant) information on other riders positions and situations in the peloton really make racing more interesting? Safer? Is it really necessary? What purpose does it serve? What does it accomplish? Why is it a good, or fair thing?

 

[kingsouth]

Don't you think that it's more important to have every rider with radio access to race radio/officals to inform/warn them of any potential hazards that may potentially threaten their safety?

The problem is that the DSs don't tell the riders "be careful on the next roundabout" the message is "get in the top 20 before the next roundabout". In the top level races there shouldn't be any "hazards" that riders need warning about.

 

[Angliru]

The problem is that the DSs don't tell the riders "be careful on the next roundabout" the message is "get in the top 20 before the next roundabout". In the top level races there shouldn't be any "hazards" that riders need warning about.

Have you seen the road furniture that the riders have to deal with in the top level races? The occasional vehicle that is parked where it shouldn't be? A moto on the side of the ride or dangerously sitting in a turn/curve aiding a fallen rider? The list goes on.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

But is having every rider with a radio back to the DS and team car the only solution for that? And is that really the primary reason teams use radios? I think not.

Furthermore, if the DS tells every rider to move up to the top 20 because of the next roundabout, or that's the prevailing strategy, doesn't that create havoc and a hazard of it's own with everyone moving up?

Still awaiting an answer to my question as to why riders need to know time gaps, and know them through the radio, as I posted above.

 

[Fidolix]

Are radio allowed during the 2013 TdF? Or was it only 1 more year UCI allowed the use of radios?

 

[Magnus]

Again, I ask why do riders need to know time gaps? Why should reliable time gap information be part of the game, as you say? Be that from radio, team cars, or moto? Does giving time gaps, or instant (or near instant) information on other riders positions and situations in the peloton really make racing more interesting? Safer? Is it really necessary? What purpose does it serve? What does it accomplish? Why is it a good, or fair thing?

Think about it for a while. Don't you think races would raced in a much more controlled fashion than now if you couldn't get info about breaks? If you don't think it makes a difference why do you care if they get the info?

Besides: it is and has been an integral part of the sport in a very long time. You might as well ask why recumbents isn't allowed.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I have thought about it, and no, I don't think races would be raced in a much more controlled fashion. Quite the contrary. It would cause riders to make their own calculations, chasing breaks too early, or too late more frequently, making for more dramatic racing.

I don't buy the argument that it's been an integral part, therefore should be allowed. I think tradition is a very poor barometer when determining how rules and regulations for any sport should be set.

 

[cycladianpirate]

My view is that the real difference is smaller teams. Sure, there would be less bunch sprints, but mavericks (like, say, Vino) would have a much greater chance - all the year round.

 

[Oldman]

You mean other than their own intellect? I thus respectfully disagree with your assertion.


Again, I ask why do riders need to know time gaps? Why should reliable time gap information be part of the game, as you say? Be that from radio, team cars, or moto? Does giving time gaps, or instant (or near instant) information on other riders positions and situations in the peloton really make racing more interesting? Safer? Is it really necessary? What purpose does it serve? What does it accomplish? Why is it a good, or fair thing?

I was speaking in the context of the size of fields they currently run. With large fields it's entirely possible not to be able to see the front of the race from start to finish.

 

[avanti]

Race radios were used in the ITTs - I heard a couple of riders say they were somewhat useless because of the noise from the spectators.

 

[Fowsto Cope-E]

I have thought about it, and no, I don't think races would be raced in a much more controlled fashion. Quite the contrary. It would cause riders to make their own calculations, chasing breaks too early, or too late more frequently, making for more dramatic racing.

I don't buy the argument that it's been an integral part, therefore should be allowed. I think tradition is a very poor barometer when determining how rules and regulations for any sport should be set.

Really? If riders had no information at all on how far ahead the break was or who was in it, then surely, no break would ever be allowed out of site. Once a break gets out of site, how would you even know that there is a break? The calculations that riders would have to make would be very simple: If it's out of site, the gap's too big; otherwise, no worries.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

But for decades they raced without radios, and there were breaks all the time. Even in this most recent Olympic race it shows that without the radios a breakaway succeeded.

 

[Caruut]

Really? If riders had no information at all on how far ahead the break was or who was in it, then surely, no break would ever be allowed out of site. Once a break gets out of site, how would you even know that there is a break? The calculations that riders would have to make would be very simple: If it's out of site, the gap's too big; otherwise, no worries.

I think it would be too hard for teams to chase everything that moved, and we would see teams taking gambles and trying to predict things. It would certainly make for an interesting format of racing. Perhaps one of the one-week races could implement it as a different form of racing.

 

[Master50]

I have thought about it, and no, I don't think races would be raced in a much more controlled fashion. Quite the contrary. It would cause riders to make their own calculations, chasing breaks too early, or too late more frequently, making for more dramatic racing.

I don't buy the argument that it's been an integral part, therefore should be allowed. I think tradition is a very poor barometer when determining how rules and regulations for any sport should be set.

You were just musing about removing all the sources of information a few posts ago. So without information how does a rider make tactical decisions? So while you were back at the team car getting bottles a break happens 300 meters up the road. You don'y know a break went so by the time you are back at the front where only the people that were there know there was a break don't say squat and you get to the finish only to discover that a winning break with a gc threat got away 60 km earlier?

Tactics require information. You cannot adjust tactics without it.
Without any source of information you just have to chase every attempt at a break or maybe a dangerous rider gets away.

The women's race was so incredibly negative and they chased every move for the most part. The men's race was won by British tactics. They did not adjust their strategy when they should have realized the break had so much horsepower it was essentially equal to the main group plus the fact that the main group now lost most of the motivated riders who have already made the front. Team GB stuck to their game plan and lost. Radios may have changed that. We give too much credit or blame to radios but information is essential to tactical decisions. The playing field is too large to keep tabs without external data whether a blackboard, a visit to the car or a radio message. Regardless of how the data arrives it is essential to get the information to make any tactical decision. Without information I would think all races would become even more formulaic and predictable.

 

[Magnus]

But for decades they raced without radios, and there were breaks all the time.

Without radios yes. But not without information. Ever noticed the moto with the blackboard?

 

[Master50]

You mean other than their own intellect? I thus respectfully disagree with your assertion.


Again, I ask why do riders need to know time gaps? Why should reliable time gap information be part of the game, as you say? Be that from radio, team cars, or moto? Does giving time gaps, or instant (or near instant) information on other riders positions and situations in the peloton really make racing more interesting? Safer? Is it really necessary? What purpose does it serve? What does it accomplish? Why is it a good, or fair thing?

Magnus
I think we all know about the current information system without radios. Visit to the team cars and the Blackboard as you mention. The twist in the discussion was that Alpe suggested that this information is unnecessary. So the discussion changed to arguing no blackboard either I am assuming.

 

[Magnus]

Magnus
I think we all know about the current information system without radios. Visit to the team cars and the Blackboard as you mention. The twist in the discussion was that Alpe suggested that this information is unnecessary. So the discussion changed to arguing no blackboard either I am assuming.

It seems Alpe is a bit confused about it. Fowsto and I argued that breaks would be much more controlled without (blackboard) information about timegaps. Then Alpe says that breaks was successful when there was no radios