Radio Ban is silly

[VeloFidelis]

I rode shotgun in a Fassa Bortolo team car in the 2001 Giro with Giancarlo Ferretti at the wheel. The stage to Montebelluna was relatively inconsequential. Fassa had the Maglia Rosa with Dario Frigo, and therefor lead position in the caravan. Tossatto won the stage in a sprint. It was a unique opportunity to gain some insight. Here's what I saw.

There were three cell phones (2 for Ferretti, 1 for the Shimano Tech) three radios (Official Race, 1 to other Fassa Team car, 1 to riders) and a dash mounted television with the live race feed. By far the most influential elements of technology was live television, followed by cellphones, and Race Radio. The helicopter view of the race was vital in tactical decisions. The cell phone communication with other DS' to call in favors or repay them in kind was by far the most revealing. And Race Radio played it's part in conveying race details, such as mechanicals, obstacles, complicated approaches which were then conveyed to the riders from the second team car by Alberto Volpi.

Ferretti spoke mostly to his riders through the window of the car. But he had far longer conversations with key riders from other teams, (DiLuca, Cipollini, Pantani, Simoni) which even in my limited Italian proved far more enlightening about the dynamics of the stage. The communication that did go out by radio to riders, was strategy based more on what we were seeing on television than anything else.

My point in all this, is that this was nine years ago. Communication technology has advanced a light years since then. It is now firmly ingrained in the sport. First of all banning radios would inspire technological detours, (cheating) and does the UCI really need another thing on their plate that requires policing. Secondly, knowing a little something about the motivations and aspiration of the sponsors. I can tell you that they are not excited about leaving tactical decisions that affect the return on their investment in the hands of riders. Their opinion is that they are the ones who bring professional cycling to the fans, and as much as you may hate the concept, with the exception of the Olympics, they are correct.

Is there communication in the peloton? Absolutely, but it is naive to think it can be adequate in the heat of competition. In all the examples being debated here, of sports where radios are not used, there is no mention of the fact the coaching communication is constant both from the sidelines and as players move in and out of the game. There is no "time out" in cycling. Having tactical decisions made exclusively by the riders would make cycling a unique team sport in that regard.

It is a romantic notion that cycling will return to some glory of former days as soon as radios are banned. Citing individual events that produced a specific result, or Michael Barry's and Jens Voigt's opposing views on the subject are meaningless. The decision as to whether radios will stay or go will be, in the end, a financial consideration, which gives the sponsors a lot more clout than a very small minority of nostalgic cycling purists. Cycling has had a tough go over the past few years enticing sponsorship dollars. I don't believe the UCI is about to bite the hand that feeds us all

 

[180mmCrank]

The call from Riis might have change the tactics but it didn't change the result in my opinion. You can shout 'attack' down a radio link all you want but if the rider hasn't got the legs it won't make any difference.

Boonen had a radio but it didn't prevent him from screwing up by being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Personally I don't see any reason why there can't be a universal race radio that warns riders of anything dangerous and can also tell teams if one of their riders is in need of assistance.

 

[elapid]

I rode shotgun in a Fassa Bortolo team car in the 2001 Giro with Giancarlo Ferretti at the wheel. The stage to Montebelluna was relatively inconsequential. Fassa had the Maglia Rosa with Dario Frigo, and therefor lead position in the caravan. Tossatto won the stage in a sprint. It was a unique opportunity to gain some insight. Here's what I saw.

There were three cell phones (2 for Ferretti, 1 for the Shimano Tech) three radios (Official Race, 1 to other Fassa Team car, 1 to riders) and a dash mounted television with the live race feed. By far the most influential elements of technology was live television, followed by cellphones, and Race Radio. The helicopter view of the race was vital in tactical decisions. The cell phone communication with other DS' to call in favors or repay them in kind was by far the most revealing. And Race Radio played it's part in conveying race details, such as mechanicals, obstacles, complicated approaches which were then conveyed to the riders from the second team car by Alberto Volpi.

Ferretti spoke mostly to his riders through the window of the car. But he had far longer conversations with key riders from other teams, (DiLuca, Cipollini, Pantani, Simoni) which even in my limited Italian proved far more enlightening about the dynamics of the stage. The communication that did go out by radio to riders, was strategy based more on what we were seeing on television than anything else.

My point in all this, is that this was nine years ago. Communication technology has advanced a light years since then. It is now firmly ingrained in the sport. First of all banning radios would inspire technological detours, (cheating) and does the UCI really need another thing on their plate that requires policing. Secondly, knowing a little something about the motivations and aspiration of the sponsors. I can tell you that they are not excited about leaving tactical decisions that affect the return on their investment in the hands of riders. Their opinion is that they are the ones who bring professional cycling to the fans, and as much as you may hate the concept, with the exception of the Olympics, they are correct.

Is there communication in the peloton? Absolutely, but it is naive to think it can be adequate in the heat of competition. In all the examples being debated here, of sports where radios are not used, there is no mention of the fact the coaching communication is constant both from the sidelines and as players move in and out of the game. There is no "time out" in cycling. Having tactical decisions made exclusively by the riders would make cycling a unique team sport in that regard.

It is a romantic notion that cycling will return to some glory of former days as soon as radios are banned. Citing individual events that produced a specific result, or Michael Barry's and Jens Voigt's opposing views on the subject are meaningless. The decision as to whether radios will stay or go will be, in the end, a financial consideration, which gives the sponsors a lot more clout than a very small minority of nostalgic cycling purists. Cycling has had a tough go over the past few years enticing sponsorship dollars. I don't believe the UCI is about to bite the hand that feeds us all

I am against race radios based on my belief that it takes tactical decisions out of the hands of the riders and makes the cyclists more like pawns or automatons rather than tacticians and thinkers, but that was an excellent post VeloFidelis. Very interesting and a different perspective. Thanks.

 

[Zerak-Tul]

Seconded, great post VeloFidelis!

 

[python]

I rode shotgun in a Fassa Bortolo team car in the 2001 Giro with Giancarlo Ferretti at the wheel. The stage to Montebelluna was relatively inconsequential. Fassa had the Maglia Rosa with Dario Frigo, and therefor lead position in the caravan. Tossatto won the stage in a sprint. It was a unique opportunity to gain some insight. Here's what I saw.

There were three cell phones (2 for Ferretti, 1 for the Shimano Tech) three radios (Official Race, 1 to other Fassa Team car, 1 to riders) and a dash mounted television with the live race feed. By far the most influential elements of technology was live television, followed by cellphones, and Race Radio. The helicopter view of the race was vital in tactical decisions. The cell phone communication with other DS' to call in favors or repay them in kind was by far the most revealing. And Race Radio played it's part in conveying race details, such as mechanicals, obstacles, complicated approaches which were then conveyed to the riders from the second team car by Alberto Volpi.

Ferretti spoke mostly to his riders through the window of the car. But he had far longer conversations with key riders from other teams, (DiLuca, Cipollini, Pantani, Simoni) which even in my limited Italian proved far more enlightening about the dynamics of the stage. The communication that did go out by radio to riders, was strategy based more on what we were seeing on television than anything else.

My point in all this, is that this was nine years ago. Communication technology has advanced a light years since then. It is now firmly ingrained in the sport. First of all banning radios would inspire technological detours, (cheating) and does the UCI really need another thing on their plate that requires policing. Secondly, knowing a little something about the motivations and aspiration of the sponsors. I can tell you that they are not excited about leaving tactical decisions that affect the return on their investment in the hands of riders. Their opinion is that they are the ones who bring professional cycling to the fans, and as much as you may hate the concept, with the exception of the Olympics, they are correct.

Is there communication in the peloton? Absolutely, but it is naive to think it can be adequate in the heat of competition. In all the examples being debated here, of sports where radios are not used, there is no mention of the fact the coaching communication is constant both from the sidelines and as players move in and out of the game. There is no "time out" in cycling. Having tactical decisions made exclusively by the riders would make cycling a unique team sport in that regard.

It is a romantic notion that cycling will return to some glory of former days as soon as radios are banned. Citing individual events that produced a specific result, or Michael Barry's and Jens Voigt's opposing views on the subject are meaningless. The decision as to whether radios will stay or go will be, in the end, a financial consideration, which gives the sponsors a lot more clout than a very small minority of nostalgic cycling purists. Cycling has had a tough go over the past few years enticing sponsorship dollars. I don't believe the UCI is about to bite the hand that feeds us all

+10.

a rare long post i read to the end and liked it.

im deeply indifferent to the subject as it's really a matter of opinion but you made a lot of sense with your post.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Thanks for the comments. While I understand the sentiment and desire of the pro radio ban contingent, I am a big believer in the law of unintended consequences. When I can put a cyclometer on my handlebar that measures my speed and distance by bouncing a signal off a satellite, and a DS can sit in a car and monitor the heart rate of every team member in the race; I find it hard to fathom that you are going to keep even more impressive advances in electronic communication out of professional racing.

 

[blaxland]

Thanks for the comments. While I understand the sentiment and desire of the pro radio ban contingent, I am a big believer in the law of unintended consequences. When I can put a cyclometer on my handlebar that measures my speed and distance by bouncing a signal off a satellite, and a DS can sit in a car and monitor the heart rate of every team member in the race; I find it hard to fathom that you are going to keep even more impressive advances in electronic communication out of professional racing.

+1 agreed..well said velofidelis