Radio Revolt

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
VeloFidelis said:
It doesn't matter what argument you want to use. The riders want radios! Their opinion is more important on this issue than yours, mine, or the UCI's
They also all want million dollar contracts.
Rule changes take place in pro sports to improve their marketing potential.
i.e. to make them more exciting to watch, for the general public.

The idea of removing radios is good, trying to execute a change at the Tour, was not the place to start.

All U23 races are set to go radioless. When these riders reach the top flight, radios can be phased out.
Fabian Cancellara called it. He said that maybe it is a good idea, but it needs to be trialed in an early season event. Riders will adapt, once they get a feel for racing "au naturel".

The French championship race, without radios, was a corker.

Using radios, doesn't stop at the DS to rider, rider to DS feedback.

Many of the top teams have spent a fortune on spywear technology, to listen in on the other team radios.
So if all the top teams are party to the tactics of their opponents, before they are employed, how is this good?
Just another form of cheating, in my book.


Reading through this thread, I get the impression that the pro-radio camp, in the majority, are pro Astana/Lance/Tempotrain tactics.
The anti-camp are looking for something a little less formulated, unpredictable and exciting.
 
Mar 15, 2009
349
0
0
Well I think the stage was a triumph, despite the riders and teams suggestions that rider corpses would be littered over the roads of stage 10 not a single fatality. And the only major injury come from a fall in the middle of the pack on a straight bit of road suggesting the only way to keep the riders really safe is to stick them on stationary bikes in a padded room.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,384
0
0
auscyclefan94 said:
I still don't see wat is so bad about the radios. Not trying to have a go at you but that is a very old fashioned point of view. You could say that coaches give their players their tatics and they are out their to complete them. If a cyclist(s) completes the tatics the ds tells then they have completed the instructions. Soccer players and cyclists are controlled mostly by their ds but the leaders of the team also need to show leadership to postion their team etc.. The riders or players still have to use their heads but the instruxtions of tatics are given out b coaches. Cycling is the same as any sport except they get their messages through a radio. Other sports get their instruction from a runner (man who runs out, giving instructions on the field. NO big deal if they have them...
I don't think that the anti radio side of the argument is old fashioned. IMO, it's an attempt to disrupt the neutralisation of modern racing. Your soccer analogy is flawed in so many ways. How many matches have you watched where the manager is waving his arms and gesturing like a banshee with no discernible effect on the team? How many times have you heard commentators say "They can't wait for half time to get in the changing rooms and reshape the team and their tactics"? Now, this may be the product of soccer players being, on the whole, as thick as pig sh*t and unable to execute but you get the point, right? The half time team talk in cycling is replaced by the road captain (one man, not every rider) going back to the team car and talking to the DS. Race radio keeps everybody informed of safety issues and the rider numbers and time splits in breaks so what's the problem? As we have heard, the two way radios can suffer from reception/transmission issues anyway so can not be relied upon to communicate race strategy and how many times do you see riders at the DS car anyway? Plenty.

Commercial interests have infiltrated the sport in such a way as to sterilize the racing. Again, imo, this step supported by a parcours that encourages racing with intermittent recovery stages might revitalise le tour.
 
Jun 27, 2009
240
0
0
Mellow Velo said:

Reading through this thread, I get the impression that the pro-radio camp, in the majority, are pro Astana/Lance/Tempotrain tactics.
The anti-camp are looking for something a little less formulated, unpredictable and exciting.


Exactly !
For example " old school " cycling rider Danilo Di Luca never rides road stages with an earpiece...
"It's not that I refuse it," said Di Luca,
"But after a little while it gives me troubles in my head. In fact, I've had to use my mind instead of just listening to the instructions given by the director. I'm convinced it has helped me improve to the level where I am now. I know what I have to do."
 
auscyclefan94 said:
I still don't see wat is so bad about the radios. Not trying to have a go at you but that is a very old fashioned point of view. You could say that coaches give their players their tatics and they are out their to complete them. If a cyclist(s) completes the tatics the ds tells then they have completed the instructions. Soccer players and cyclists are controlled mostly by their ds but the leaders of the team also need to show leadership to postion their team etc.. The riders or players still have to use their heads but the instruxtions of tatics are given out b coaches. Cycling is the same as any sport except they get their messages through a radio. Other sports get their instruction from a runner (man who runs out, giving instructions on the field. NO big deal if they have them...
I'm actually complemented when you call mine an "old fashioned" point of view, because its against the corporate world, which I despize, and is what the high tech racing is really all about and not about improving anything.

Mine is also an anti-conformist perspective, which in the corporate world has become an increasing rarity these days. And too much conformism is dreadful.
 
LugHugger said:
Race radio keeps everybody informed of safety issues and the rider numbers and time splits in breaks so what's the problem?
As has been pointed out numerous times now, there was not a total ban on radios. Riders and teams could still get information on road hazards and safety issues from the officials radios. As the director's clearly stated:

"The ban only applies to communication between riders and their teams. Riders will still be allowed to carry radios and receive information from organisation's race radio channel.

That pretty much covers the safety issue, does it not?

At issue is the riders locations and splits. Radio is used to know where every rider is on the stage at any given moment. This means if a rider goes up the road, the others don't have to gauge anything about him, at all. The team car will track the rider, and when that rider is at the right distance, a chase will ensue to make sure that he doesn't finish ahead of the group, or with much of a gap. Riders are well aware of this, and this is why we see so few attacks - riders know that they aren't likely to be able to escape, and stay away. Thus, the risks are all averted. There are exceptions to this, of course, but it seems to be the norm more and more. This, to me, is a real source of boring racing.
 
Jun 22, 2009
129
0
0
The experiment failed.

According to the race organizers, the purpose of racing without the radioes was to try to inject some excitement into the racing so that the sport would grow and attract more fans; yet we saw a stage that was more "relaxed" and "enjoyable" (from many of the riders' points of view) and decidedly not more exciting. Therefore, the experiment failed, and to an extent, we saw that the DS's were correct in their new found concern about rider safety: When Averson hit the deck, his team didn't even know about for ten minutes and were finally notified by a rider from another team. So, ten minutes later they had to send someone back to look for him (because they didn't know where he was or even if he was capable of riding.) They could have left him and probably should have, but he is too valuable a worker to abandon in the ditch, so to speak. Besides that incident though, isn't le Tour the wrong venue to be carrying out experiments? I would hate to see the outcome of the race affected by some silly failed "experiment."
 
Jun 16, 2009
647
0
0
In addition to Alpe finally hitting the nail on the head regarding the real use of radios I would like to explain that pro cycling is all about negotiating and bargaining between the riders and the DS's.

In the peloton there is "The Boss" and then the deputies (Voigt, Cancellara) and in the cars behind Boss Hog rules the roost, backed up by Riis. There is a strict pecking order established, and it's all about ensuring that senior figures are able to control everything.

When the action unfolds all the leaders are talking to one another and political bargaining goes on initially to decide who is allowed to attack and when. Also, if an unpopular move takes place the bosses can unite to force it back, or even the opposite, in allowing a popular move to go clear.

Radio communication is an essential tool in ensuring that the biggest doggies get their way.

That's why the little dogs on the small teams were enthusiastic about radio free tour stage, while the senior riders whined.
 
Mar 19, 2009
941
0
0
Hammerhed said:
According to the race organizers, the purpose of racing without the radioes was to try to inject some excitement into the racing so that the sport would grow and attract more fans; yet we saw a stage that was more "relaxed" and "enjoyable" (from many of the riders' points of view) and decidedly not more exciting. Therefore, the experiment failed, and to an extent, we saw that the DS's were correct in their new found concern about rider safety: When Averson hit the deck, his team didn't even know about for ten minutes and were finally notified by a rider from another team. So, ten minutes later they had to send someone back to look for him (because they didn't know where he was or even if he was capable of riding.) They could have left him and probably should have, but he is too valuable a worker to abandon in the ditch, so to speak. Besides that incident though, isn't le Tour the wrong venue to be carrying out experiments? I would hate to see the outcome of the race affected by some silly failed "experiment."
It was boring becaue they were petulantly trying to make a point and refusing to race!
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,384
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
As has been pointed out numerous times now, there was not a total ban on radios. Riders and teams could still get information on road hazards and safety issues from the officials radios. As the director's clearly stated:

"The ban only applies to communication between riders and their teams. Riders will still be allowed to carry radios and receive information from organisation's race radio channel.

That pretty much covers the safety issue, does it not?

At issue is the riders locations and splits. Radio is used to know where every rider is on the stage at any given moment. This means if a rider goes up the road, the others don't have to gauge anything about him, at all. The team car will track the rider, and when that rider is at the right distance, a chase will ensue to make sure that he doesn't finish ahead of the group, or with much of a gap. Riders are well aware of this, and this is why we see so few attacks - riders know that they aren't likely to be able to escape, and stay away. Thus, the risks are all averted. There are exceptions to this, of course, but it seems to be the norm more and more. This, to me, is a real source of boring racing.
Agreed. That was my point also! I was responding to auscycles dodgy soccer analogy :D
 
Jul 4, 2009
335
0
0
Its a sad day for Cycling. The most prestigious cycling body in the world is unable to make teams adhere to the rules.

It sets a dangerous precedent. Next year the riders might want to review the route and cross out certain stages? What if TDF organisers had insisted, would the race be postponed whilst the matter was dealt with in the European Court? The no radio rule was introduced early on, every one knew about it. Teams signed on and agreed to the terms and conditions. TDF backed down because it can deal with the matter after the race. Withhold prize money etc.

The purity of Cycling has taken such a blow the last 20 years or so. I saw the radio ban as a reinforcement of the belief that Cycling is after all, an individual sport. A man and his bike. It would have made for exciting racing.

It would have for the first time in many years, reintroduced the skills of a team captain making decisions. You dont know what we have missed by this late change. Given the make up of the race, it would have been fascinating to watch Drugstrong and Contador decide who was boss. This is the reason for the change, Astana flexing its muscle, Drugstrong being a sook.

Without doubt, the lead would have changed without radio.

To me it looks like half of Astana eats a special diet ;) the rest are not so lucky.

You must remember, everyone of these blokes is used to racing without radio comms.

I cant see a reason why they would actually need race radio, car radio or any other radio. Its the safest course in the world. It has the most security and police of any race. They are all pros, and finally, some of you dont realise that radios would have been worn for emergency reasons. They were to be single frequency receivers.

Extra motorbikes were to be provided giving time checks and rider numbers. Everything was covered, even extra neutral cars.

Next year, Id expect the TDF organisers to fight back after a year of turmoil.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
Get rid of the radios...the whole bunch of crap about safety is just crap. This is the same peleton who would have most of the riders race without helmets if it was not mandatory, and they want to talk about safety.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
mickkk said:
....Drugstrong and Contador decide who was boss. This is the reason for the change, Astana flexing its muscle, Drugstrong being a sook.
Either write his name correctly or go post in the other place. Your *******ization is offensive in this supposedly 'doping talk free' forum.
 
Mar 19, 2009
941
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
Either write his name correctly or go post in the other place. Your *******ization is offensive in this supposedly 'doping talk free' forum.
Yes, get it right, it's "Pharmstrong".
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,844
1
0
From the Skil-Shimano website...Here Here!!!!!

Merijn Zeeman: ‘Tour is too important to waste days’

The Skil-Shimano team didn’t join the protest against the ban on races radios during the tenth stage from Limoges to Issoudun. “I’m not against it. I think it is important to coach the riders during the race and innovation is part of the sport. But our team thinks that we must not debate this during the Tour de France. It was known long before the Tour de France that we couldn’t use our communication system. So we followed our own plan today, the Tour de France is too important for us to waist days. Thierry Hupond did his utmost to win a stage, it was a pity that the peloton caught him just before the finish.
You might think that Zeeman had a quiet day in his car without the race radio, but that’s not true. “I was behind the leading group with Thierry Hupond and if I wanted to give information I had to drive next to the group. We also spend more time in our preview so the riders knew exactly what would be expected of him this race.” &nbs p;
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Animal said:
Yes, get it right, it's "Pharmstrong".
That goes for you too, Tosseur. You're neither funny nor clever, just blinded by hate if you refuse to write a man's name correctly.
 
Mar 19, 2009
571
0
0
Race radios . . . either ban them or embrace them all out.

Is racing more predictable these days with radios? I cannot say, because I've never been able to see a live race like the TDF in such detail as I can now on TV or online. I suspect though you'd not see as many catches of breakaways at the line as you see now. The DS are using computers to calculate all this and relaying to the riders. It's as if the riders are the horses and the DS's are the jockeys with a whip telling the riders when to go faster. Except these jockeys have all these electronic gadgets.

One thing for sure though, radios and all electronic gadgets are NOT integral to the sport. Some have compared the importance radios to the invention of carbon bikes, wheels, etc. That is absolutely wrong. A radio has nothing to do with riding a bike. It is not integral to any part of cycling. Sponsorship is another issue.

If they want to experiment, test a race like Paris-Nice without radios for the entire event. You'll see the riders will quickly adapt.

Right now the riders are just like the rest of us . . . . dependent on our gadgets. Does anyone really need to have a telephone with them every minute of the day? No. Do riders need to voice in their ear for every minute of a race? No. It's just a sign of our times . . . people are afraid to be alone for one second without being tethered to another. It seems more like a ball and chain though.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Amsterhammer said:
Either write his name correctly or go post in the other place. Your *******ization is offensive in this supposedly 'doping talk free' forum.
i agree.. calling riders things like drugstrong is purely an expression of opinion but one we can all do without, we all know which forum to go to if we want to discuss armstrongs alleged infringements etc but we dont need to start renaming cyclists within racing threads thank you..
 
Mar 19, 2009
941
0
0
Amsterhammer said:
That goes for you too, Tosseur. You're neither funny nor clever, just blinded by hate if you refuse to write a man's name correctly.
Oh stop it you drama queen.

<swoons> Blinded by hate , OHHHH I can't take the hate<swoons>

You puff.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Animal said:
Oh stop it you drama queen.

<swoons> Blinded by hate , OHHHH I can't take the hate<swoons>

You puff.
Run along and post your drivel in the other place, there's a good fellow.
 
French tv announce that Prudhomme and the UCI have decided to not ban radios on the Colmar stage.

What could have been a really definitive stage, effectivelt neutralised, just like yesterday.

Platform 13: ALL ABOARD!:rolleyes:
 
Mar 11, 2009
258
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
Congratulations to the to the Teams and Riders of the 2009 Tour de France, for standing up like men and using their collective power and solidarity in refusing to have the conditions of their work environment unduly compromised by the arbitrary and nostalgic rational of the UCI. I particularly appreciate that they have made their point in a unified action that is unmistakable in it's message: "Don't F@ck with Us!"

They are the ones who make the competition what it will be... they are the competitors. They are the ones working theirs asses off and risking life and limb to provide a spectacle for us fans to enjoy. It was good of them to remind us of that. If they perceive this technology to be an asset to them in their workplace then they should have the benefit of using it.

No one is asking any of us to give up internet access and cell phones in favor of type writers and rotary dial phones because of some idiotic idea that it will magically return the work place back to some unrealistic and preconceived notion of a better time. It is not our place to apply subjective interpretation as to what will make racing more entertaining.

Thank you gentlemen of the Peloton for reminding us all that the rule of unintended consequences works both ways. And congratulation for finding the balls to deliver the message in unison.
Errr, what did they do 'in unison' rather than have a 'piano' day?
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
French tv announce that Prudhomme and the UCI have decided to not ban radios on the Colmar stage.

What could have been a really definitive stage, effectivelt neutralised, just like yesterday.

Platform 13: ALL ABOARD!:rolleyes:
As (sadly) already predicted last night. :(

Tosseurs.
 
Hammerhed said:
According to the race organizers, the purpose of racing without the radioes was to try to inject some excitement into the racing so that the sport would grow and attract more fans; yet we saw a stage that was more "relaxed" and "enjoyable" (from many of the riders' points of view) and decidedly not more exciting. Therefore, the experiment failed, and to an extent, we saw that the DS's were correct in their new found concern about rider safety: When Averson hit the deck, his team didn't even know about for ten minutes and were finally notified by a rider from another team. "
You haven't understood anything Hammerhead. The experiment failed, because the team DSs didn't allow for the experiment to happen and the riders, consequently, simply took the day off, and this was proof that the experiment "failed." Thus we got a false result.

The non-stage we saw yesterday was the fruit of these little Napoleons of the ear radios, or oreillettes in French, or auricolari in Italian, or pinganillos in Spanish. And of the acquiescence of the majority of riders who prefer to be governed like sheep.

Many of them put on the table the security issue, but is a false problem. For it isn't that riders crash less, or take upon less risks, in comparison to when they raced without the radios, that is from when they were first introduced by Motorola in 92. Rather it's simple attention that keeps you upright, not the pinganillos.

Italian commentator and ex-pro (mid-80's till mid 90's), Davide Casani, is dicidedly against them: "Because they nullify the natural differences. There are racers who under intense physical stress can remain lucid and reason well, and others who can't. To relate everybody the same information is like joining the side of the stupid ones. What value is there, then, in regards to a rider knowing his own occupation, what does experience count for, or one's at a glance grasp of the situation if there is always somebody telling you what you are to do?" (la Repubblica, R2 Sport, from today's Gianni Mura article).

This is the difference between what I call romantic cycling and the sterile, corporate one of today with the radios.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY