Radio Ban is silly

[Flicklives]

The ban on race radios, passed by USAC and on its way to being banned by the UCI is silly.

The premise is that the radios make the racing less exciting. Absurd !

Armstrong didn't have 7 guys riding tempo all day because of radios.
Classics through the 90's didn't have sprint finishes because of the radios.
The sport got increasingly boring because everyone riding around with a 'crit of 49.9 leveled the playing field.

As someone who's used the radios in professional races I can tell that they're primarily used for safety. You use them to let riders know of upcoming obstacles or road incidents. You use them to know when riders are coming back for feeding, which help manage the caravan, and you use them to know when there's a flat or crash which helps both the caravan as well as neutral support.

Banning these radios for open road races, especially point to point races and races with caravans is short sighted, pointless, and dangerous.

 

[doddy13]

As someone who's used the radios in professional races I can tell that they're primarily used for safety. You use them to let riders know of upcoming obstacles or road incidents.

When the TDF banned radios last year, riders got netural safety information, making that argument void.

 

[bobbins]

Safety is a bull**** reason!

How does a car sat behind warn of up coming hazards?? Don't the riders cal out anymore or are they too busy listening to the radio??

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

My solution: neutral race radios! Same information for all the riders. (time differences, safety information, the latest LA gossip...)

 

[fatandfast]

When the directors are unable to mark everybody it will make things much better. When 10 riders are within 15 seconds on GC it will be the people on the bikes that have to mark them. When guys go up the road and are at 5 or 6 minutes the rider will have to calculate the chase speed not a car with a laptop. Radios and big pack finishes go together. My opinion, by removing this technology it will make racing better. Now if they can get rid of the rest days everything will be great.

 

[eleven]

My solution: neutral race radios! Same information for all the riders. (time differences, safety information, the latest LA gossip...)

Hey! That's a damn good idea.

I generally support allowing radios, but your solution makes most of reasons for that support void.

Can we make sure that the neutral radios keep folks updated with critical Bradgelina info as well?

 

[forty four]

radios should be for rider safety only imo not for tactical use. i hate seeing brakes get chased down right at the line consistently.

 

[Flicklives]

How does a car sat behind warn of up coming hazards?? Don't the riders cal out anymore or are they too busy listening to the radio??

Think of any race you've ever done, and tell me what information, if you had received it during the race, would have made one bit of difference in your placing ?

Now think of the times there's been a car on the course or some other condition that's caused a bad accident and think about how that could have been avoided if the all the riders knew about it before hand.

In a point to point road race there are always changing conditions and unforeseen hazards. These are passed along by the lead motos in the caravan to all the team cars. Currently, the team cars then pass that information to the riders via radio.

We're not talking about potholes on your weekend ride or cat 4 race. I'm referring to cars broken down on the road, sand or oil on the road in corners, unanticipated course changes which occur on in town finishes that don't have circuits. These are just a couple examples of things that regularly occur that can't be resolved by the lead rider raising his hand in the air.

And in reference to radios chasing down breaks...leaving a break at 2 minutes then catching in the last kilos has been occurring since 80's and well before the radios. The race motos supply the splits and info on who is in the breaks at regular intervals. The provide that to the team cars and on a chalkboard to the riders. Having the cars transmit that info from the team car to the rider directly only provides the momentary advantage of not having to wait 10 second for the chalkboard moto to write it down.

Neutral support radios for the riders would achieve the same thing and I have absolutely no objection to that.

In general, coaching from the car is meaningless. On a selective course, even more so. All the prodding and information doesn't get a mule up the hill any faster.

 

[dolophonic]

Raidio's should go.

 

[Flicklives]

radios should be for rider safety only imo not for tactical use. i hate seeing brakes get chased down right at the line consistently.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but those breaks aren't out there because of the efforts of the breakaway riders. Those breaks are out there because of the intentions of the pack.

For reason that I think are mostly stupid, riders are not supposed to attack if there's a break up the road and one team ( or two teams) are controlling the break.

In US races the format is prescribed. Get your riders in a break before the 50km mark, which is the first feeding/**** break. After that first feeding/****, the break will have 2-3 minutes as a result of the field taking care of buisness . Both the field and the break ride around at about 25 mph, until the race gets to a real obstacle ( like a big climb) or until the sprint when the field really starts racing.

There are variations...In Philly, the break can get up to 7 minutes early because the race is longer, and individual rider is always allotted more time for obvious reasons. But its essentially the same script.

In order to have "real" racing, with real tactics and real breakaways you need one thing....a hard course. That's why the classics have always been exciting. That's why ( before EPO) Alpine stages over multiple climbs were always great. That's why worlds is usually really good.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

My solution: neutral race radios! Same information for all the riders. (time differences, safety information, the latest LA gossip...)

+1
Simple solution. A neutral channel speaking to riders and the DS.

 

[fatandfast]

Think of any race you've ever done, and tell me what information, if you had received it during the race, would have made one bit of difference in your placing ?

Now think of the times there's been a car on the course or some other condition that's caused a bad accident and think about how that could have been avoided if the all the riders knew about it before hand.

In a point to point road race there are always changing conditions and unforeseen hazards. These are passed along by the lead motos in the caravan to all the team cars. Currently, the team cars then pass that information to the riders via radio.

We're not talking about potholes on your weekend ride or cat 4 race. I'm referring to cars broken down on the road, sand or oil on the road in corners, unanticipated course changes which occur on in town finishes that don't have circuits. These are just a couple examples of things that regularly occur that can't be resolved by the lead rider raising his hand in the air.

And in reference to radios chasing down breaks...leaving a break at 2 minutes then catching in the last kilos has been occurring since 80's and well before the radios. The race motos supply the splits and info on who is in the breaks at regular intervals. The provide that to the team cars and on a chalkboard to the riders. Having the cars transmit that info from the team car to the rider directly only provides the momentary advantage of not having to wait 10 second for the chalkboard moto to write it down.

Neutral support radios for the riders would achieve the same thing and I have absolutely no objection to that.

In general, coaching from the car is meaningless. On a selective course, even more so. All the prodding and information doesn't get a mule up the hill any faster.

Yours is the perfect example. I have been in a few races where my legs were stale or got a puncture. You ride for many miles completely demoralized because all is lost. If you got info about who to wait for or go hard there are riders to bridge to 20 seconds in front of you it would make a difference. Doing a 100k TT is way harder than getting in a nice line with 5 or 8,20 guys all trying to make contact. You are right coaching from a car is as useless as people yelling "you are doing great""keep it up""you can do it". If somebody yelled there is a group of 20 at 20 seconds ahead, and a couple of miles up the road somebody yells you are 5 seconds behind it can really help. As far as mules and horses go you must not have ridden much,your animal can act like death sucking on a Lifesaver but once they see the barn, they get new life and legs. Almost born again.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Having no radio feed certainly electrified the first stage of last year's Tour of Cali.
It's a question of attitude. Riders need to drop the negativity. Riders that favor attacking, often drop out their ear pieces.
Let's have them going at it alone, instead of having DS's telling them when to breathe.

You have to draw a line in the sand, someplace.
The technology is already out there to give them race pictures, so they can see who is doing what. Imagine the crash carnage, with all those eyes off the road. A daft example, I know.
With race radio's, most of their minds are elsewhere.
Get them thinking for themselves again.

Like the idea of a neutral race radio, for hazards etc...

 

[Flicklives]

Yours is the perfect example. I have been in a few races where my legs were stale or got a puncture. You ride for many miles completely demoralized because all is lost. If you got info about who to wait for or go hard there are riders to bridge to 20 seconds in front of you it would make a difference.

Poppycosh. Without a caravan, dropped riders almost never get back on after a puncture and NEVER....NEVER....after being "stale".

And the weak justification for why the radios are being banned is because of what's happening at the front of the race, not that they're being use to motivate the autobus.

 

[Anonymous]

My solution: neutral race radios! Same information for all the riders. (time differences, safety information, the latest LA gossip...)

Brilliant solution. +1. The pro-radio on "safety" grounds brigade can have no reason to argue against this.

p.s. DS's having radio's didn't seem much help on that greasy corner in the 2008 Tour of Ireland, they kept lining up to skid off even with radios. However, if a commissaire had a radio to the riders, all sorted.

 

[bianchigirl]

Neutral radios or 1 radio per team (a tactical decision as to who has it). DS's are control freak prima donnas who want to think they have more importance than ferrying drinks and spares around, hence the increasing reliance on technology to build their role. The sport is no more dangerous now than when there was a man and a chalkboard. But I do agree that doping has its part to play in taking some of the thrill out of the sport - though I assume you're not saying that domestic US riders are all doping are you?

 

[fatandfast]

Poppycosh. Without a caravan, dropped riders almost never get back on after a puncture and NEVER....NEVER....after being "stale".

And the weak justification for why the radios are being banned is because of what's happening at the front of the race, not that they're being use to motivate the autobus.

You are right that it's difficult to catch after a flat tire. Aussie Nats as an example when riders loose contact, they stop chasing. I was not suggesting that playing a self help CD or Rocky's theme into the ears of all those off the back is likely to change the outcome. Bike races full of parity and technology have taken on the look of the world.Fatter by the minute. US races have always been fat,long breaks are not part of a winning tradition in the US.We like field sprints. Euro races have always been skinny, most times a single file line,repeated throughout. Given I may be wrong, I will gladly except my error after a couple of years of radio free racing.

 

[bianchigirl]

One of the most exciting races I've seen in a while was last year's French National's won by Dimitri Champion who simply outfoxed the bigger names - racing was fast, furious and attacking. Is this a function of it happening in a country that prizes panache in a rider rather than the radio ban? All I know is the riders found it exciting and challenging, like 'real' racing.

 

[lagartija]

i dont understand why so many people want to go back in time,as if not having race radios is going to magically enhance rider IQ, make races harder ,or more exciting,............. sorry guys , i have done both,with or without radios if you dont have the legs to stay at the front you wont. its ultimately up to the rider and his ability, or his stubbornness. im for them, keep me informed i say. the strongest guy on the day will generally still win

 

[elapid]

Some examples of the effect of race radios:

1. Armstrong radioed Bruyneel to contact Ferrari to get his opinion whether Pantani would blow or not on a mountain stage (must have been 1999 TdF). Ferrari said he would and Armstrong didn't chase. Pantani blew and Armstrong won. Without race radios, Armstrong would have chased and expended energy and the results of the stage (and maybe the race) may have been very different.

2. Leipheimer in stage 1 of the 2009 ToC. Race radios were down because of weather conditions. Mancebo went on a break and eventually won. Leipheimer was totally out of his depth and his lack of tactical skills were highlighted when he later complained that because of race radios he had no idea where Mancebo and the break were and hence how to ride the stage.

Sorry Flicklives, but I don't believe you regarding the survival of breaks being no different now compared to times without race radios. Yes, they definitely would have been chased down on occasion, but not with the some tedious regularity as now days. Also, without race radios, riders did not know if someone went of the front of the break when the break finally was caught.

I am not sure if we can go back to life without race radios, but some middle ground would be appropriate, such as Buffalo Soldier's recommendation of a neutral race radio.

 

[The Crusher]

My solution: neutral race radios! Same information for all the riders. (time differences, safety information, the latest LA gossip...)

My thoughts exactly.

The only downside is money, i.e. who pays for it? On the one hand, a receive-only radio should be cheaper than a 2-way. On the other hand, plenty of smaller domestic teams aren't using radios now, so would this be a new cost for them, or would it be optional?

The other question this raises - is the safety issue the only real issue, or is it just a rationalization from team directors that want more control?

 

[Bike Boy]

Some examples of the effect of race radios:

1. Armstrong radioed Bruyneel to contact Ferrari to get his opinion whether Pantani would blow or not on a mountain stage (must have been 1999 TdF). Ferrari said he would and Armstrong didn't chase. Pantani blew and Armstrong won. Without race radios, Armstrong would have chased and expended energy and the results of the stage (and maybe the race) may have been very different.

I feel pledged to help you out here. The incident your're referring to took place during stage 16 of the tour de france year 2000.

The most fun part from this story, is that Pantani posed no threat in the GC, it was simply a matter of arrogance/pride.
Armstrong was so psyched that he forgot to eat, and as a natural consequence he bonked on the tough climb of Col de Joux Plane

Actually Pantani didn't even participate in the 1999 edition. Which is evident in the following link.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/tour99/tour99teams.html

 

[El Oso]

Michael Barry provides an interesting perspective on the radio ban:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2009/10/rider-diaries/michael-barrys-diary-the-peloton-unplugged_98897

He argues the radio warning of road hazzrds actually make the racing more dangerous

Sitting in the middle of the peloton, riding along at a steady tempo as a team controls the pace on the front, I hear our director in the radio: “There is a dangerous descent coming up in four kilometers. Move to the front to stay out of trouble. There is gravel on the corners and many switchbacks. Get to the front.”

Sitting in the car, well behind the peloton, he has seen the technical section of course on the map and the commissaires have also relayed the information to him through their radio broadcast to all the vehicles following the race. Almost instantaneously there is a panic in the peloton.

 

[The Crusher]

Michael Barry provides an interesting perspective on the radio ban:

He argues the radio warning of road hazzrds actually make the racing more dangerous

So here's the question - is it knowledge of the safety hazard that increases the hazard, or is it the instruction from every director to every rider that they should get to the front?

Suppose the announcement was just the marshal - "Sand in the turn ahead, everyone slow down and exercise caution". Would there be the same reaction? Sure you could argue that riders might choose to speed up. But I think they would be as unpopular as the riders that attack in feed zones or pee breaks or during a competitor's mechanical.

 

[El Oso]

So here's the question - is it knowledge of the safety hazard that increases the hazard, or is it the instruction from every director to every rider that they should get to the front?

Suppose the announcement was just the marshal - "Sand in the turn ahead, everyone slow down and exercise caution". Would there be the same reaction? Sure you could argue that riders might choose to speed up. But I think they would be as unpopular as the riders that attack in feed zones or pee breaks or during a competitor's mechanical.

IMO it could go either way: There could be an unwritten rule not to push to the front or it could be like the northern spring classics where there is virtually a bunch sprint to the base of the helligen or pave (although I'm sure one could argue that's from the directors screaming in the riders' ears).

I think it would also depend on how much notice there is, since it is a fact that it's safer to ride towards the front to see and judge the obstacles and to avoid being caught behind any crash.