Radios are gone?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
What an interesting dichotomy: we all revel in the latest technology as cyclists, but believe as fans that we have both the wisdom, and the right to be selective about where it is applied. I suggest that anyone who thinks this is a good idea go back to using dial up internet for a week for a better understanding of the folly here. Technology does not retreat.

My prediction: The riders, and teams will call bullsh!t and the fight will be on. I don't think either will go quietly into that dark night... nor should they. All this speculation that racing will return to some semblance of it's former self is pretty silly.

What are they going to take away next when this doesn't work?... clipless pedals, or indexed shifting?
Technology does not retreat? Where are Spinaci bars, The superman position, TT saddles with a backstop, bikes that weigh less then 6.8kg?

The UCI has consistently modified what is allowed in the sport. It is good to see they made the right choice for a change.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
0
0
Race Radio said:
Technology does not retreat? Where are Spinaci bars, The superman position, TT saddles with a backstop, bikes that weigh less then 6.8kg?

The UCI has consistently modified what is allowed in the sport. It is good to see they made the right choice for a change.
I miss those.... :(
But good point!
 
Race Radio said:
Technology does not retreat? Where are Spinaci bars, The superman position, TT saddles with a backstop, bikes that weigh less then 6.8kg?

The UCI has consistently modified what is allowed in the sport. It is good to see they made the right choice for a change.
Yep.
.
Sports generally are contrived to ensure a specific sort of competitive experience.
.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Race Radio said:
Technology does not retreat? Where are Spinaci bars, The superman position, TT saddles with a backstop, bikes that weigh less then 6.8kg?

The UCI has consistently modified what is allowed in the sport. It is good to see they made the right choice for a change.
While your list undoubtedly includes some of cycling's most dramatic break through technological advancements of recent note, I think it is safe to say that the level of enthusiasm for any of these products in the peloton was decidedly lacking. At least not to the point of threatening a riders strike to get them back.

Race radios on the other hand as far as the riders (or a strong majority) and the team management are concerned represent a significant competitive advantage for both rider and team. They all have a very strong and emotional attachment to those elements which can, and have proven to, help determine or affect, race results, team sponsorship, team budgets, and career advancement.

I would not, and do not expect to see them lie down for the UCI on this issue. Expect to see a protracted battle. The riders understand their part, and their collective power in this equation. I anticipate they will present a united and defiant front on this issue with the UCI. Spinaci bars and the Superman position on the other hand... Mmmm maybe not.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
While your list undoubtedly includes some of cycling's most dramatic break through technological advancements of recent note, I think it is safe to say that the level of enthusiasm for any of these products in the peloton was decidedly lacking. At least not to the point of threatening a riders strike to get them back.

Race radios on the other hand as far as the riders (or a strong majority) and the team management are concerned represent a significant competitive advantage for both rider and team. They all have a very strong and emotional attachment to those elements which can, and have proven to, help determine or affect, race results, team sponsorship, team budgets, and career advancement.

I would not, and do not expect to see them lie down for the UCI on this issue. Expect to see a protracted battle. The riders understand their part, and their collective power in this equation. I anticipate they will present a united and defiant front on this issue with the UCI. Spinaci bars and the Superman position on the other hand... Mmmm maybe not.
The riders will take whatever position their DS tells them.

You must be new to the sport. Riders have *****ed, and continue to *****, about Spinaci's being banned, Bike weight limits, Helmets, TT bike limitations, Hotel rooms, race food. You name it they complain.

If Team radio's represent such a competitive advantage why did Di Lucca not wear one when he won the Giro, or LBL, Amstel or this year when he got 2nd in the Giro? Why did Ulrich turn his off or pull it out most of the time?

Asked in confidence most riders welcome this ban.
 
Race Radio said:
The UCI has consistently modified what is allowed in the sport. It is good to see they made the right choice for a change.
Keep in mind, RR, they really haven't. There is no date of implementation of this new rule. And the new rule still allows full info to the team cars, and team cars able to relay that info, and all other instruction, directly to the riders. The only thing limited is the riders talking to the team car via radio. As Dim said a few days ago, they got the rule backwards.

VeloFidelis said:
Race radios on the other hand as far as the riders (or a strong majority) and the team management are concerned represent a significant competitive advantage for both rider and team.
Competitive? Against what? Each other? Radios have essentially equalized things, and eliminated nearly all risk taking in the form of attacks.

I am sure the riders will whine about this, even the minimal rule change this is, and protest. But remember some of the protests and sit-in's about helmets? What about against drug testing? As RR said, they whine and complain all the time. Unfortunately, the UCI is too often like the parent with no backbone who spoils their child and gives them candy every time they cry.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Keep in mind, RR, they really haven't. There is no date of implementation of this new rule. And the new rule still allows full info to the team cars, and team cars able to relay that info, and all other instruction, directly to the riders. The only thing limited is the riders talking to the team car via radio. As Dim said a few days ago, they got the rule backwards.
I am hopeful that this is the interim step to a complete ban.

Remember what they did with helmets, at first they allowed the riders to take them off for summit finishes. This lasted a few years then the UCI made them mandatory at all times.
 
Sep 26, 2009
2
0
0
well i also agree that radio should not be use in sports any more because it make rider like a follower of someone or something and thus it put certain restrictions on rider.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Race Radio said:
The riders will take whatever position their DS tells them.

You must be new to the sport. Riders have *****ed, and continue to *****, about Spinaci's being banned, Bike weight limits, Helmets, TT bike limitations, Hotel rooms, race food. You name it they complain.

If Team radio's represent such a competitive advantage why did Di Lucca not wear one when he won the Giro, or LBL, Amstel or this year when he got 2nd in the Giro? Why did Ulrich turn his off or pull it out most of the time?

Asked in confidence most riders welcome this ban.
And they welcome it for different reasons. The new domestique that gets the cold shower after the race and cold shoulder from the "star" doesn't want to be told for the umpteenth time to fetch something or "chase the break" because the star is lazy (hear me Cadel?). The experienced qualified rider doesn't need the armchair DS perspective (who remembers, but doesn't feel, 21/2 weeks of relentless torment) on what switchback to attack or how many watts he can put out; based on the DS data. Screw that and let good riders stay close enough to the front to know what's going on. They'll use their brains and legs to accomplish real tactics and the races will get much more exciting.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Race Radio said:
The riders will take whatever position their DS tells them.

You must be new to the sport. Riders have *****ed, and continue to *****, about Spinaci's being banned, Bike weight limits, Helmets, TT bike limitations, Hotel rooms, race food. You name it they complain.

If Team radio's represent such a competitive advantage why did Di Lucca not wear one when he won the Giro, or LBL, Amstel or this year when he got 2nd in the Giro? Why did Ulrich turn his off or pull it out most of the time?

Asked in confidence most riders welcome this ban.
Dude... Please!

Get over the Spinaci bars! Nobody gives a sh!t! (except maybe some PLM at Cinelli) And by all means dig up a few more insightful moments in the annals of cycling history when a DiLucca or an Ulrich pulled their radios out, and 150 other guys in the race didn't. Who f@*#ing cares?

And by please drop the tired cliche' that anyone with a different opinion must be new to the sport. You used to race, now you don't. Get used to it. There's a lot of us out here.

Of course riders b!tch about all sorts of things, just like everyone who posts on this site. As to your assertion that most riders welcome the ban... show me the data, and your source.

None of the examples you site are worth the time, energy and resources to fight about and no one ever will. Communication with their entire team, on the road during during a race however, is going to be viewed by the management of a large majority of Pro Tour team as an essential element of their competitive arsenal. They are not going to give it up without a fight. If you think they are, you must be new to the sport (just couldn't resist).

You obviously want them banned. I am ambivalent about it, but I recognize a political land mine when I see one. The notion that racing will automatically return to some nostalgic notion of a better time and competitive level is just plain naive. The Genie is out of the bottle. Racing is different for a myriad of reasons. To think that eliminating radios will restore former glory is illogical.

But hey... if I am wrong and you are right. I would ask that maybe you could spend some time considering the vast and convoluted elements of the economic down turn. We could use a quick and sure fire solution for that as well.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
Dude... Please!


None of the examples you site are worth the time, energy and resources to fight about and no one ever will. Communication with their entire team, on the road during during a race however, is going to be viewed by the management of a large majority of Pro Tour team as an essential element of their competitive arsenal. They are not going to give it up without a fight. If you think they are, you must be new to the sport (just couldn't resist).

You obviously want them banned. I am ambivalent about it, but I recognize a political land mine when I see one. The notion that racing will automatically return to some nostalgic notion of a better time and competitive level is just plain naive. The Genie is out of the bottle. Racing is different for a myriad of reasons. To think that eliminating radios will restore former glory is illogical.

But hey... if I am wrong and you are right. I would ask that maybe you could spend some time considering the vast and convoluted elements of the economic down turn. We could use a quick and sure fire solution for that as well.
Classifying race strategy as a "former glory" suggests that it no longer exists. Lot's of racing is conducted on amateur and pro levels without radios and it is much more exciting for all involved, including fans. You should try it sometime if you still can race on that level. You'd really appreciate the difference. Radio communication is a threshold-breaking introduction to the sport beyond all the bike technology being argued. The NFL debated the issue greatly before allowing the Quarterback and Middle linebacker to have earpieces. The argument for including them was: stadium noise and theft of play-coaching signals by the opposing team. The count of QBs and LBs that willingly use them is not overwhelming as the players want to play; not be robots.
 
Jun 25, 2009
24
0
0
Funniest use of radios

the funniest use of radios I've seen lately was in the resurrected Butterfly Criterium in Pacific Grove, Ca. This is a tiny tiny race around a few blocks in the downtown area. Fun to watch. One team, "California Giant" was using radios. Could not figure out why ... if cyclists can't even race in this type of race without radios and a DS yelling in their ear ... it is a sad statement on cycling and the unwillingness of teams to allow their riders to learn strategy.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
Dude... Please!

Get over the Spinaci bars! Nobody gives a sh!t! (except maybe some PLM at Cinelli) And by all means dig up a few more insightful moments in the annals of cycling history when a DiLucca or an Ulrich pulled their radios out, and 150 other guys in the race didn't. Who f@*#ing cares?

And by please drop the tired cliche' that anyone with a different opinion must be new to the sport. You used to race, now you don't. Get used to it. There's a lot of us out here.

Of course riders b!tch about all sorts of things, just like everyone who posts on this site. As to your assertion that most riders welcome the ban... show me the data, and your source.

None of the examples you site are worth the time, energy and resources to fight about and no one ever will. Communication with their entire team, on the road during during a race however, is going to be viewed by the management of a large majority of Pro Tour team as an essential element of their competitive arsenal. They are not going to give it up without a fight. If you think they are, you must be new to the sport (just couldn't resist).

You obviously want them banned. I am ambivalent about it, but I recognize a political land mine when I see one. The notion that racing will automatically return to some nostalgic notion of a better time and competitive level is just plain naive. The Genie is out of the bottle. Racing is different for a myriad of reasons. To think that eliminating radios will restore former glory is illogical.

But hey... if I am wrong and you are right. I would ask that maybe you could spend some time considering the vast and convoluted elements of the economic down turn. We could use a quick and sure fire solution for that as well.
You seem to be getting frustrated as your argument gets more confused each time you post.

My position on radios has nothing to do with nostalgia or former glory. There is plenty of racing where radios are not allowed and it is obvious that it is more entertaining and unpredictable. The French cup races have been without radios for a few years and are excellent to watch. The French Championships also were without radios this year. The result was a relative unknown, Dimitri Champion, outsmarting the established pros and big teams .

Just because some Directors want it does not mean it is good. Many directors would love to decrease drug testing as well, that does not make it right. There are some Directors, like Marc Madiot, who are very much against radios. I will listen to a guy who won Paris Roubaix twice.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Oldman said:
Classifying race strategy as a "former glory" suggests that it no longer exists. Lot's of racing is conducted on amateur and pro levels without radios and it is much more exciting for all involved, including fans. You should try it sometime if you still can race on that level. You'd really appreciate the difference. Radio communication is a threshold-breaking introduction to the sport beyond all the bike technology being argued. The NFL debated the issue greatly before allowing the Quarterback and Middle linebacker to have earpieces. The argument for including them was: stadium noise and theft of play-coaching signals by the opposing team. The count of QBs and LBs that willingly use them is not overwhelming as the players want to play; not be robots.
I agree with much of what you say. We didn't have radios in my day, and we figured it out. But I also see the introduction of radio vilified here as the single most influential event contributing to the demise of cycling as we know it. Conversely it potential banning is being hailed as the resurrection of yes; the "former glory" of the sport. I personally don't think it is either.

Racing has changed. So has media coverage, rider salaries, team budgets, and the consequences of major mistake in a classic or grand tour. The stakes are high enough that the people who write those big checks are not going to like reducing their odds in favor of making the sport more interesting for a minority of fans who know enough about tactics and strategy to care.

I know that it is hard to hear, but the vast majority of what sponsors consider to be cycling fans, can't name a single classic. The people who post here are not the target audience for anyone's marketing dollars. We'd all still be watching regardless. Since the sponsors provide the teams, they get a big say in what adequately represents their interests.

Removing radios does not represent their best interests. Expect a fight.
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Race Radio said:
You seem to be getting frustrated as your argument gets more confused each time you post.

My position on radios has nothing to do with nostalgia or former glory. There is plenty of racing where radios are not allowed and it is obvious that it is more entertaining and unpredictable. The French cup races have been without radios for a few years and are excellent to watch. The French Championships also were without radios this year. The result was a relative unknown, Dimitri Champion, outsmarting the established pros and big teams .

Just because some Directors want it does not mean it is good. Many directors would love to decrease drug testing as well, that does not make it right. There are some Directors, like Marc Madiot, who are very much against radios. I will listen to a guy who won Paris Roubaix twice.
I think my position is pretty clear, but let me help you with your confusion. You want race radios eliminated. I don't care either way. You predict it will be good for the sport. My crystal ball is in the shop for service. You think the UCI can mandate this issue and get what they want without a fight. I think they just stepped into another sh!t storm.

Which way will it go? Film at 11:00
 
Apr 20, 2009
667
0
0
Race Radio said:
I never wrote this, nor do I believe it.
Well excuse me for asking, but if you don't believe it, then why are you rebutting my posts? It is my only, and consistent position on this issue?
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
I agree with much of what you say. We didn't have radios in my day, and we figured it out. But I also see the introduction of radio vilified here as the single most influential event contributing to the demise of cycling as we know it. Conversely it potential banning is being hailed as the resurrection of yes; the "former glory" of the sport. I personally don't think it is either.

Racing has changed. So has media coverage, rider salaries, team budgets, and the consequences of major mistake in a classic or grand tour. The stakes are high enough that the people who write those big checks are not going to like reducing their odds in favor of making the sport more interesting for a minority of fans who know enough about tactics and strategy to care.

I know that it is hard to hear, but the vast majority of what sponsors consider to be cycling fans, can't name a single classic. The people who post here are not the target audience for anyone's marketing dollars. We'd all still be watching regardless. Since the sponsors provide the teams, they get a big say in what adequately represents their interests.

Removing radios does not represent their best interests. Expect a fight.
It's not hard to hear as your are practically correct. Radios are a benefit to rider safety. It's not so much the ability to communicate that has neutered much of the racing; it's the money disparity among teams that is amplified by the ability to control the racing. It leaves as little to chance and the fanciful expolit as possible. I find that really dull.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
Well excuse me for asking, but if you don't believe it, then why are you rebutting my posts? It is my only, and consistent position on this issue?
???

I have address your points directly, you may want to reread the thread and your own posts.
 
Mar 19, 2009
941
0
0
VeloFidelis said:
the people who write those big checks are not going to like reducing their odds
How does it reduce their odds?

Maybe if only THEY were subject to the rule.

But that's not the case. The proposition is that EVERY team is subject to the.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Animal said:
How does it reduce their odds?

Maybe if only THEY were subject to the rule.

But that's not the case. The proposition is that EVERY team is subject to the.
I agree with Fidelis on this...if a big budget team has more strong riders they can use them more efficiently with radios. That is an actual advantage they wouldn't want to give up. Again, I find that type of racing mechanical and boring but they will bigger teams will fight the power on this one.
 
Mar 19, 2009
941
0
0
They should let them put engines on the bikes.

I mean if the sponsor is putting the money in, they want results don't they?
 
Mar 11, 2009
104
0
0
Animal said:
They should let them put engines on the bikes.

I mean if the sponsor is putting the money in, they want results don't they?
Absolutely, but limit each to no more than 1/2 horsepower to match the limit on bike weight. This will make for closer, more exciting mountain-top finishes (boring now as each rider trickles in). We might even have mountain-top sprint finishes!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY