Radios are gone?

[Anonymous]

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!

Carbon fiber mopeds. How awesome would that be? Imagine the feed zones where they had to "fuel" up... I would pay to see that.

 

[Animal]

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!

Why hold back technology though? You luddite

If they have the cash, let them use these:

 

[rhubroma]

And they should make them use steel bikes weighing 20-21lbs with 7-8 spd downtube shifters as well... In fact, get rid of carbon altogether! LOL! It's technology and a natural progression of the sport.

The past is exactly that, the past. You can't relive or revive racing of old because you miss the way it used to be. Like it or not radios are a part of the sport.

Get rid of it in the lower ranks to teach kids tactics and what-not but when you step up to the big boys where the field is more even in terms of fitness, ability and experience then you get to play with big boy toys.

If you get rid of that aspect of technology then you better get rid of everything else that has come along over the last 20+ years, according to this group think-tank.

No there can be lines drawn in regards to how much corporate-tech stuff comes in and what gets left out.

Lighter bikes are fine, as when everybody's got them, they don't alter a riders' responces to tactical situations the way radios do.

It just brings more corporate managment in on the part of the DS. We don't need that.

 

[guilder]

Michael Barry is one of many riders who will be glad to see radios gone

http://www.velonews.com/article/98897/michael-barry-s-diary---the-peloton-unplugged

The Merckx legacy is a poor example for the race radio argument. His legacy is an even poorer example of what cycling should return to.

First of all can anyone but Eddie really prove that he was actually "thinking" while living up to his nickname "The Cannibal"?

Is Merckx for radios or not? Barry doesn't remotely touch upon Eddie's opinion on race radios.
I really question whether Merckx today would endorse Barry's interpretation or even appreciate his pointless mention, as he is a businessman with employees that require direction in real time, not unlike a cycling team.

In his day perhaps the peloton was more than willing for Merckx to be gone off the front? His mesmerizing dominance was easier to watch than to challenge? They were paid regardless. As long as Eddie kept winning everyone was happy. The pre-race strategy is attack Eddie before he attacks. Oh well, another easy day in the saddle.


Other thoughts:
Perhaps radios and accountability are primary reasons for average speed increases over the years?

 

[robow7]

Michael Barry's editorial piece is excellent and really says it all. The last part on Eddy M is minimal and doesn't make or break his argument.

 

[guilder]

Michael Barry's editorial piece is excellent and really says it all. The last part on Eddy M is minimal and doesn't make or break his argument.

It shows his argument can't stand on it's own. Mentioning Merckx is a manipulative distraction.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Michael Barry's point about Ferrari not wanting a rule change that ay affect their dominance in Formula One is the most salient component of his argument. While he certainly has credibility to make the assessment that he does of how radios affect the behavior in the peloton, the point remains. The continued financial interests of the team sponsors are not enhanced with the removal of radio communication with the riders.

Whether it is more or less dangerous for the average riders is of less concern to them. We can all debate the quality of the ethical standard being applied here, but it is difficult to deny it. Large amounts of money are being spent and a return is expected against those amounts. The greater the risk of return, the less will be gambled. Expect the teams and their sponsors to lobby in their own best interests, not those of the riders or the fans. I will be very surprised to see radio communication with riders eliminated from the Pro peloton

 

[luckyboy]

Other thoughts:
Perhaps radios and accountability are primary reasons for average speed increases over the years?

In his day perhaps the peloton was more than willing for Merckx to be gone off the front? His mesmerizing dominance was easier to watch than to challenge?

What, so they just let Merckx win?

 

[Race Radio]

Michael Barry's point about Ferrari not wanting a rule change that ay affect their dominance in Formula One is the most salient component of his argument. While he certainly has credibility to make the assessment that he does of how radios affect the behavior in the peloton, the point remains. The continued financial interests of the team sponsors are not enhanced with the removal of radio communication with the riders.

Whether it is more or less dangerous for the average riders is of less concern to them. We can all debate the quality of the ethical standard being applied here, but it is difficult to deny it. Large amounts of money are being spent and a return is expected against those amounts. The greater the risk of return, the less will be gambled. Expect the teams and their sponsors to lobby in their own best interests, not those of the riders or the fans. I will be very surprised to see radio communication with riders eliminated from the Pro peloton

Sponsers benefit from no radios.

Instead of one team winning stage after stage becuase they have a powerful team that can bring back breakaways you will once again see breakaways succeed. The smaller teams will be important again instead of 1-2 powerful teams. This brings more sponsors into the sport when they think they have an actual chance of a victory.

This years Giro was considered one of the most dangerous GT's in years. Riders cried about it daily. How is it Di Lucca got through all this danger without a radio?

 

[pedaling squares]

It shows his argument can't stand on it's own. Mentioning Merckx is a manipulative distraction.

I disagree. Barry did not claim that Merckx supports a radio ban. He merely mentioned Merckx's agreement about the peoples' love of the primitive instincts contributing to the sport's popularity. The obvious inference is that we risk losing that popularity if riders lose the instinct to assess and attack.

 

[Hugh Januss]

sponser benefit from no radios.

Instead of one team winning stage after stage becuase they have a powerful team that can bring back breakaways you will once again see breakaways succeed. The smaller teams will be important again instead of 1-2 powerful teams. This brings more sponsors into the sport when they think they have an actual chance of a victory.

This years giro was considered one of the most dangerous gt's in years. Rider cried about it daily. how is it di lucca got through all this danger without a radio?

cera?..................

 

[Race Radio]

cera?..................

It is a little known fact that in addition to increasing your Hct CERA also gives cat like reflexes and spidey sense.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Sponser benefit from no radios.

Instead of one team winning stage after stage becuase they have a powerful team that can bring back breakaways you will once again see breakaways succeed. The smaller teams will be important again instead of 1-2 powerful teams. This brings more sponsors into the sport when they think they have an actual chance of a victory.

This years Giro was considered one of the most dangerous GT's in years. Rider cried about it daily. How is it Di Lucca got through all this danger without a radio?

Obviously you believe that Sponsors would benefit from the elimination of radios. But I am not sure your scenario is sound. I don't currently see one team winning stage after stage. (Cavendish aside) There seems to be enough parity in results to keep the current crop of sponsors engaged.

The best financed teams will always buy the best talent, and be the most competitive, cycling is no different from other sports in that regard. The real question is whether those sponsors perceive letting the smaller teams chances of victorious results improve, to be good for their own interests. I suspect not. And if not, I expect them to work hard to keep radios in place.

 

[Anonymous]

It is a little known fact that in addition to increasing your Hct CERA also gives cat like reflexes and spidey sense.

Plus he didn't have to carry the weight of the radio so he could attack over and over. Every gram counts.

 

[Race Radio]

Obviously you believe that Sponsors would benefit from the elimination of radios. But I am not sure your scenario is sound. I don't currently see one team winning stage after stage. (Cavendish aside) There seems to be enough parity in results to keep the current crop of sponsors engaged.

The best financed teams will always buy the best talent, and be the most competitive, cycling is no different from other sports in that regard. The real question is whether those sponsors perceive letting the smaller teams chances of victorious results improve, to be good for their own interests. I suspect not. And if not, I expect them to work hard to keep radios in place.

Cavendish aside? why ignore the most obvious example?

Columbia is the the most obvious...... when was the last time you watched a sprint stage in the Giro or Tour that did not end with the breakaway getting caught with 10km to go? It is seldom a different ending, resulting in boring racing and little chance of success for smaller teams.

If sponsors think there is no way for small breakaways to succeed they will look to other sports.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Cavendish aside? why ignore the most obvious example?

Columbia is the the most obvious...... when was the last time you watched a sprint stage in the Giro or Tour that did not end with the breakaway getting caught with 10km to go? It is seldom a different ending, resulting in boring racing and little chance of success for smaller teams.

If sponsors think there is no way for small breakaways to succeed they will look to other sports.

Just because every pole dance has the same ending doesn't mean that guys don't pay to watch 'em.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Cavendish aside? why ignore the most obvious example?

Columbia is the the most obvious...... when was the last time you watched a sprint stage in the Giro or Tour that did not end with the breakaway getting caught with 10km to go? It is seldom a different ending, resulting in boring racing and little chance of success for smaller teams.

If sponsors think there is no way for small breakaways to succeed they will look to other sports.

July 8th, 16th, and 18th... but what does that have to do with whether or not sponsors will fight to maintain radios in the Peloton?

 

[Oldman]

July 8th, 16th, and 18th... but what does that have to do with whether or not sponsors will fight to maintain radios in the Peloton?

I think he presumes the smaller sponsor's would take issue with the dominance of better financed teams and the potential advantage they could have. Not likely to happen, though. You called it earlier and the UCI will have bigger issues on their hands, soon enough.

 

[Race Radio]

July 8th, 16th, and 18th... but what does that have to do with whether or not sponsors will fight to maintain radios in the Peloton?

Thanks for proving my point, only three rolling stages. Does the fact that Cavendish won 7 stages escape you? Why invest in the sport when the only way you can win is if you have a few doped up climbers or a train to chase down all the breakaways?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

July 8th, 16th, and 18th... but what does that have to do with whether or not sponsors will fight to maintain radios in the Peloton?

While I agree there will be a fight for the retention of radios - I don't believe it will be lead by the sponsors or the teams -it will be from the DS's for control.

This is what Patrick Lefevere in 2008:
"The race is influenced by the radio," he admitted, but emphasised that the safety of the rider has to be considered. Some riders, like CSC's Jens Voigt, have also critised radios in the past. The German powerhouse once compared their use to making him "feel like being part of a video game".

The riders were asked in 2008 on their opinions and 70% were in favour of retaining the radios - again the primary reason sited was 'safety'.
This brings us back to 'Dimspaces" post early on - that the riders can have the radios but that they are for giving information on hazards or street furniture.
It could even be incorporated that it is 2way - so if a rider has a mechanical they can radio and the Comms can inform the following team personnel.

A lack of radios will not be a throwback to a golden era as racing strategies have evolved - however it would make some races less predictable and allow the savvy rider to outwit others.

 

[VeloFidelis]

Thanks for proving my point, only three rolling stages. Does the fact that Cavendish won 7 stages escape you? Why invest in the sport when the only way you can win is if you have a few doped up climbers or a train to chase down all the breakaways?

I'm very sure that I am not supporting your point, just as I am very sure that we are not discussing the same topic. You are preoccupied with whether or not radios should be part of racing, and your interpretation of their cumulative affect on the sport. In that regard your opinion is as good as any other. I don't care either way, but I also don't think removing them will achieve the desired affect that so many here seem confident will occur. That's my opinion.

What I am discussing, is whether they will be part of racing next year and the motivations from interested parties that will lobby to keep them in place. I think they will be there because money talks, and the people who spend the most on professional cycling want them. On this single point; conspiracy theories, and individual rider preferences, and feats of glory aside, what's your opinion?

 

[robow7]

Another excellent consideration from an insiders' vantage, can't wait to see them go.

http://velonews.com/article/99071/michael-barry-s-diary---radio-ga-ga

 

[Race Radio]

I'm very sure that I am not supporting your point, just as I am very sure that we are not discussing the same topic. You are preoccupied with whether or not radios should be part of racing, and your interpretation of their cumulative affect on the sport. In that regard your opinion is as good as any other. I don't care either way, but I also don't think removing them will achieve the desired affect that so many here seem confident will occur. That's my opinion.

What I am discussing, is whether they will be part of racing next year and the motivations from interested parties that will lobby to keep them in place. I think they will be there because money talks, and the people who spend the most on professional cycling want them. On this single point; conspiracy theories, and individual rider preferences, and feats of glory aside, what's your opinion?

You really should go back and read your own posts. You must have missed your rant on technology, step backwards, etc. I can understand that once that was shown to be a poor analogy you switched the discussion to will they be part of the sport.

Of course it will be a fight. As I have posted I anticipate it to be a gradual change that comes over 2-3 years.

If you have any questions about if the absence of radios will effect racing you only need to look at the French cup and U23 races since they banned radios. Far more open and unpredictable. You may feel that racing may not change but most informed observers would not agree with you.

 

[VeloFidelis]

You really should go back and read your own posts. You must have missed your rant on technology, step backwards, etc. I can understand that once that was shown to be a poor analogy you switched the discussion to will they be part of the sport.

Of course it will be a fight. As I have posted I anticipate it to be a gradual change that comes over 2-3 years.

If you have any questions about if the absence of radios will effect racing you only need to look at the French cup and U23 races since they banned radios. Far more open and unpredictable. You may feel that racing may not change but most informed observers would not agree with you.

I don't have to read my own posts to know that I rarely, if ever rant. I leave that for those deluded enough to think they are among the the more informed.

Outside of seat fairings and Spinacci bars, ground breaking technology in their own right, real technology does not step backwards. For every silly example like the Superman position that you can name, there are a dozen real advancements in technology that will never go away. I believe that 2 way communication with riders is one. In my opinion, it is here to stay. Whether it is good for racing or not is an opinion too, and by definition neither right or wrong.

I would be wary of using examples to support your argument that don't necessarily apply. U23 is not the Pro Tour. The money, the riders, the sponsors, the races, the egos, the scope, and the motivations are different. I have no idea how removing radios might affect the racing in the Pro Tour. I know what the rampant speculation is among the self considered more informed. But I wouldn't listen to anybody pompous enough to say that they know. I'm a big subscriber to the "Law of Unintended Consequences". If radios are banned we will all see together what changes come with it.

My opinion is again that they will not be, and I will try to touch on every previous post to support my opinion, and end your confusion. It's improving technology, like high speed internet. There's no going back. The sponsors want it, because the cost of a catastrophe that could have been avoided with communication is too high for them. The riders want it for the same reasons (individual testimonies aside) because that avoidable catastrophe could seriously derail a contract or a career. The team management wants it for all those same reasons.

It's about money and control. These things are quantifiable. Unfortunately opinions on whether the racing will be better are not. I just don't see the power and money at the top end of the sport, acquiescing to the conjecture of that well informed minority of fans, who absolutely know what's best.

 

[Stradaracer]

AIGCP Role

Could someone help explain the role of AIGCP and who exactly they represent. See: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/aigcp-opposed-to-ucis-two-way-radio-ban. The article leads me to believe that AIGCP represents ALL members of the professional teams. By all members, am I to assume that AIGCP represents the professional cyclists view of retaining race radios? I thought that the CPA represented the cyclists. No?