Radios - Safety or Control of your riders?

[Master50]

Voigt makes some good points about stage race design, and I like the idea of open communication as a possible measure instead of no communication. But I disagree with some of his points. His crash had nothing to do with radios and in a radio-free race moto support could certainly have warned the riders/cars behind about the downed rider. Same with the U23 race with the car - moto support should have been able to stop all riders until the threat was gone. If that ruins a breakaway well too bad, desperate times call for desperate measures. As for Schleck's puncture, does a pro tour team really need their DS to tell them how to protect their top rider?

Again I have to ask. Have you ever been in a peloton or the caravan in a UCI race in mountains? Often there are many mini groups without vehicles to warn the riders. Ever try to drive along side of a rider going down a twisty mountain road at 70+ KPH? Can you actually yell loud enough in french, english or spanish for them to hear you, nevermind understand you?
You don't have any perspective to judge Voight's statements. Maybe he knows much better what he is talking about than you do?

 

[Mellow Velo]

Ban the ban by May 1st, or else, is the ultimatum from the teams to the UCI:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7...take-drastic-action-if-ban-not-rescinded.aspx

Drastic action in May can mean only one thing, IMO.
The Giro is now under threat, the Tour of course, being too lucrative.
I am disgusted.

 

[offbyone]

I understand UCI's stance on this issue, but I just think it is unpractical in today's world of technology. On that reason alone I think what they are attempting to do is untenable.

The question I have is related to cheating this rule. I would think this ban would open the door for a whole new type of cheating scandals...radio cheats or text cheats or something along that lines. Is this a potential issue or am I reading too much into it?

If so I would think the timing of this ban is horrible considering all the doping scandals and last year's alleged mechanical cheating scandals.

 

[Blackstone]

Hi all,

i'm new to the forum but have been following cycling for many years.

My view, for what it's worth if it had to be changed, would be to have 2-3 riders on each team having 2 way radios, with the option to move the radios from rider to rider on different stages.

I would also add the option for the TV broadcaster to get access to the transmissions to select radio conversations to be broadcast to the viewers, as F1 does. This would give the views insight into tactics, conversations between the riders and the team.

In this day and age cycling should be enbracing technology and not looking to get rid of it. I'd rather it was left as is and they just add in the broadcasting of some radio traffic to add to the show for Joe public

 

[_nm___]

I just read Voigt's open letter and it is FANTASTIC.

First of all, journalists FAILED in any measure of objective reporting on the topic and I agree with Voigt that they favored the ban.

His logic about safety is reason enough, and I have not heard a rebuttal from the opposing camp.

i think the rebuttal from the opposing camp is "they didn't use any radios 20 years ago", that's what pat mcquaid said (or, at least, was quoted as saying).

regarding journalists, i was wondering if the media are not heavily lobbying in favour of the ban.
if they are, and given that they are important financially, maybe this will make it very difficult for the riders to reverse the ban.

one instance Voigt didn't mention (but I read on CN) was the rider that reported Pedro Horillo's horrific crash off the mountain.
He radio'ed the location, and basically due to the radio, saved Horillo's life with rapid response. Without the radio, he would not have been found for quite some time.

There was a similar situation when Jelle Vanendert crashed in the 2008 Dauphiné Libéré.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vanenderts-operation-ends-season

riders now wear helmets as a consequence of andrei kivilev's crash.
but how many times a season does this type of crash really happen?
similarly, if the radio saves only one life every 5 years, that is enough justification for the riders to continue using it.



also, another very judicious thing that jens voigt says is that when in a breakaway, the radio information helps him measure his effort better.
meaning that the radio also benefits those who are in the breakaway.



the only anti-radio argument that i can't really refute is that some sports directors seem to be control junkies who abuse the radio to dictate to their riders each and every move. but i'm working on it.

 

[nowhereman]

I think the threat by the AIGCP is perfect. UCI doesn't seem to have any desire to respond to anything but a threat. So, we will see how they respond to this shot over their bow. Everything else aside, AIGCP's statement shows that UCI blatantly lied about across the board agreement about this ban. And now I hope the teams stick together and face the UCI down.They are right,. They have not had representation at all, in this legislation. And that's a load of BS. They Are the players, it's about time they stood up, united. This is, IMO, a cause worth fighting for, and if some of us are bummed about the threat to this years Giro. I'll miss it too, but blame it on the UCI's arrogance and obstinance, Then go out, and ride your bike!

 

[pedaling squares]

You don't have any perspective to judge Voight's statements. Maybe he knows much better what he is talking about than you do?

I am posting on a cycling forum, of course I can comment upon Voigt's comments and agree or disagree with him as I choose. You may disagree with me, but that does not mean I have no perspective. To say otherwise comes across as highly arrogant.

Here is an earlier quote from you:

I just don't see how the radios get the blame for the evolution of current tactics? What ever a DS is yelling in thier ear was covered in the team meeting before the race but of course racing is dynamic...
I don't see where the people making these decisions are getting their facts but I have never sat in a debate at a UCI meeting either. I hear old guys wax romantically of the days of Anquetil or Coppi but not many of those guys have sat in the commissaires cars for a lot of years. They sit in VIP cars and can hardly even see the race from there let alone determine the truth of this story...
I say leave the radios alone.

Michael Barry appears to have another opinion.

Radios have changed cycling.

Riders have lost their instinct and have become dependent on the orders from their car and the racing has become increasingly controlled. Radio communication has eliminated many of the variables which make cycling exciting and appealing to the public. When teams began to dominate Formula One, limits were put on the cars and the technology was limited to challenge the drivers, boost the competition and level the playing field. The UCI’s announcement of a radio ban will attempt to accomplish the same thing for cycling.

I won't suggest you have no perspective to judge Barry's comments, albeit he likely knows his job better than even you. It's an opinion about how we can potentially improve racing. Agree or disagree, your call. But maybe hop down from the pulpit and approach your posts as part of a discussion and not a lecture.

 

[craig1985]

I don't know if having no radio's will also liven things up either, in a race like the TdF, HTC will just put 50 men on the front of the peloton and let the break get 2:33 so Cav can get his 566546576th stage win. There's been plenty of exciting racing with radio's, like last year's Giro.

 

[Dewulf]

....
Michael Barry appears to have another opinion.



I won't suggest you have no perspective to judge Barry's comments, albeit he likely knows his job better than even you. It's an opinion about how we can potentially improve racing. Agree or disagree, your call. But maybe hop down from the pulpit and approach your posts as part of a discussion and not a lecture.

I just read the article by Michael Barry you linked - wow, THAT, was good. So on the money, so much relevant stuff but I'll just quote this little bit of gold:

"The race was often under the team’s ? Johan’s ? control as we whirled away on the front for hours before the crucial, planned moment when the leader attacked and crushed his rivals. A decade later the formula, since adopted by everyone, has made racing mundane. No longer does the long breakaway last until the finish and rarely does the dominant team falter."

Now Moving on to this ...

I don't know if having no radio's will also liven things up either, in a race like the TdF, HTC will just put 50 men on the front of the peloton and let the break get 2:33 so Cav can get his 566546576th stage win. There's been plenty of exciting racing with radio's, like last year's Giro.

My 2 cents:
1) I'm not sure one team can reel breaks in all day, everyday. And although there are multiple teams that will have sprinters for a bunch finish, teams don't always work effectively together...eg. there can be a kind of 'you do it' attitude from everyone and then it just doesn't get done.

2) The fact that Cav has won as much as he has in three tours (or is it 4? w/e) suggests that SOMETHING must be done. Not because it's Cav, just because it shows there plainly weren't as many opportunities for sprinters to win in the pre-radio days, ie. breakaways don't have the chances they used to....but they should. It's what makes a 5 hour stage exciting.

3) The Giro was exciting last year IN SPITE of the radios because we had:
- crashes on narrow, cluttered roads in the Netherlands
- LOTS of climbing, giving us selective stages
- LOSS OF RADIO CONTACT on stage 11, when about 50 riders got a 20 minute break on the others BECAUSE THE RIDERS BEHIND (and they said it themselves in interviews after) DIDN"T KNOW WHAT TO DO, THEY WERE WAITING FOR THEIR DS's TO GIVE THEM INSTRUCTIONS.

Now, sorry for all the caps there, but for everyone who says the riders haven't been turned into robots, well, the proof is right there. Understand I'm not saying 20 min breaks will be the norm if radios go....i AM saying that riders have lost the ability to make their own decisions if they let 50 riders get 20 minutes on them, and that's pretty sad; it needs to change.

 

[craig1985]

I've been able in favour of the policy of the riders being able to talk to the car (ie for flats, crashes etc.), but the DS can't talk back. I don't know why it's so hard to come up with a compromise like that?

 

[Master50]

But I disagree with some of his points. His crash had nothing to do with radios and in a radio-free race moto support could certainly have warned the riders/cars behind about the downed rider. Same with the U23 race with the car - moto support should have been able to stop all riders until the threat was gone.

You are right about the cause of that crash but your supposition that the motos could just get back up the road before the corner to just flag the oncoming peloton and caravan is pretty hard to execute when you are the only moto or first on the scene. If I recall Voight crashed soon after a curve on a descent. Any following vehicles or riders had the wrong side of the road to escape Jens and the people helping him. Those race assistants also have radios that can send the alarm back to other organizer vehicles and to the race officials. In that regard you make a good point but not every rider has a moto or car with them and not every vehicle has a radio linked to the organizer or commissaire channels. The team cars only have radio tour so until the message can be received by the chief com's car and relayed out on radio tour it can easily be 30 to 90 seconds assuming that the crash was immediately announced. Often the first on scene are relaying this info after some delay to ensure the immediate security of the fallen. How long does it take to run 200 meters up hill in your motorcycle boots to wave a flag at the oncoming peloton? The warning has to come far enough in advance for the drivers and riders to process. They might not see the fallen rider but this guy in a motorcycle suit waving frantically Sure the alarm gets registered in the minds of the descending but add up all the delays in the decision making process and you still see the guys who are concentrating on the wheel in front of them completely missing the entire scene. You would be amazed at how quickly the riders in a pack become oblivious to what is happening in front of the group. The harder or faster they go the more narrowly they get focused on the space just 2 to 4 meters in front of them. Only a few guys at the front sees anything further up the road than the wheel in front of them.
Now put the radio back in the riders ears and they hear crash in the breakaway on the descent. Now the peloton knows immediately that guy frantically waving is the first safety marker and react by braking in advance of the curve. It is just too simple to say the attendants and security will protect the riders. The argument is we didn't do that 20 years ago and that is true but 15 years ago we got radios and it changed this scenario by reducing the info lag to seconds from minutes. It removed or at least mitigated the long delay in getting the message to the riders.

So pedalling squares, While it seems I have singled you out I meant to use your words to illustrate the lack of perspective that is generally posted. I read so many authoritive posts from cycling fans that only know what they have read and no direct or personal experience. Is it arrogant to speak from experience or to declare it is this way without any experience? I have 25 years of in the caravan experience. I don't have the riders experience so I do listen when Mike Barry makes an opinion but he was a kid when I started working in the sport. His rider experience is valid and I respect his opinion as far as the effect of radios from that perspective but Jens makes points about the radio that speaks to my experience with radios. It troubles me hugely that some romantic theory of the tactical effect radios have on the entertainment value vs the safety and management of a dynamic moving mass of cars and riders. If you took the radios from the organizer, police, officials, medical and logistic teams racing would stop on open roads.
How many years ago was it that if you came upon an accident that someone had to find a telephone to call an ambulance. If you were first one you would be divided between protecting the victim from a secondary crash. Saving his life by stopping the bleeding or? and calling for help. With a cell phone you now only struggle with 2 decisions and can call for help on your cell phone immediately rather than in 5 or 10 minutes. It is absurd to suggest the way we did it 20 years ago was good enough then and it should be good enough now. I live in a seismically active area and building code now require us to build with some safety factors for earth quakes. Sure there are lots of buildings that were built before these rules were made but no one is saying the old way was good enough in Christchurch NZ. I would bet that there are a lot more saying how can we improve the rules to reduce the damage next time.
Yes there are pros and cons in any technology but how do you stuff a genie back in the bottle?
Last I apologize if you take this as a personal attack but your post contained the trigger for my response and was a good representation for my point.

 

[Mr. Gipsy]

Race radios - Jens Voigt

I admire Jens, he's a great rider. But, when he's asking, in a sarcastic manner, if those who want a radio ban, if we want to go back to the days of Anquetil? I say, YES. Those were the good old days, when the official drink of a race was Perrier, the jerseys were Le Coq Sportif, and tubbing was either Columbus or Reynolds. Oh, how I long for the good old days.

All the best,

Mr. Gipsy

 

[cyclingPRpro]

and now Canc was almost hit by a non-race related ambulance on course today. you can expect drastic reaction to riders by this. and that's from someone who was on course today, not my words.

 

[usedtobefast]

I admire Jens, he's a great rider. But, when he's asking, in a sarcastic manner, if those who want a radio ban, if we want to go back to the days of Anquetil? I say, YES. Those were the good old days, when the official drink of a race was Perrier, the jerseys were Le Coq Sportif, and tubbing was either Columbus or Reynolds. Oh, how I long for the good old days.

All the best,

Mr. Gipsy

cars had no seatbelts or airbags. no internet. we all smoked and drank scotch and ate a lot of red meat.

 

[Martinello]

I'm finding it hard to believe that the same riders who only put on helmets at gunpoint 6 years ago are now using the "safety" card all the time.

The argument with the shattered peloton on a mountain stage doesn't really hold true. If the riders are scattered over a distance of 5 kilometers, how would warnings/safety directives impact the majority of riders? "Watch out for the stray dog 100 meters up the road" - doesn't make any sense if 3 of the riders are ahead of the dog and 4 others are 3 minutes away from it.

And safety issues in the caravan - well, in my days of racing (and driving a service car while injured), the lead commisar car always gave dispatches on riders coming down the line and the service cars always announced on the race radio when a rider was coming up through the caravan.

The reason for the love of radios from the big names is that it makes life easier. The big teams (sprinters or GCs alike) usually rely on defensive tactics controlling any early breaks with their strong domestiques. The more information you have the easier it is to use your available resources and reduces chaos/incertanity in the system. As the escapee you're actually dependant on a fair bit of chaos to sucdeed.

 

[woodie]

So the UCI commisaires told the DS' to tell their riders about the ambulance coming the opposite direction........good work UCI

Vaughters Jonathan Vaughters (from twitter)
ambulance came the opposite way on the course today.UCI commisaires said "please tell your riders there is an ambulance on the course".. Um?

 

[pedaling squares]

You are right about the cause of that crash but your supposition that the motos could just get back up the road before the corner to just flag the oncoming peloton and caravan is pretty hard to execute when you are the only moto or first on the scene...

One thing I failed to note was that this crash happened in the TDF, when I believe there are more support vehicles than some smaller races have. So I certainly accept your point that it might be more difficult for race support to protect the rider in another race. In this case I believe the moto filming the crash could have stopped to protect Voigt, but of course there is no perfect solution when a man slams his head into asphalt at 70 km/h at the head of a stampede.

I have not stated an opposition to radios, merely agreed that their use for tactics makes a race less interesting. As in my prior post, I like Voigt's suggestion that open comms be considered, and I also like the idea of having riders access to an open channel managed by the race organizers. That should address the safety issue while also putting tactics back in the hands of the riders.

As with all suggestions for change, options of black or white are probably imperfect and a better solution may require some give and take by both sides.

Good to discuss this, your experience brings with it some good thoughts on the topic.

 

[Francois the Postman]

I've been able in favour of the policy of the riders being able to talk to the car (ie for flats, crashes etc.), but the DS can't talk back. I don't know why it's so hard to come up with a compromise like that?

It is hard because this isn't about safety, but the DS's refusal to give up on their ability to talk to the riders directly. Otherwise we would have had the obvious compromise by now.

Things that stood out to me over the last couple of weeks, TvG who gives a long answer with many reasons about why he wants radios. Not one single one about safety. All about the added stress to him of having to become more race aware and make up his own mind.

Freire who said he was "ordered to protest" by Breukink.

This is one instance where I hope the UCI will tough it out with the DS block.

 

[peloton]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/03/news/saxos-bjarne-riis-blasts-uci-over-radio-ban_162553

Riis:

“Today’s race showed just how dangerous it is to race without radios,” Riis said, referring to the narrow, wet descent off the first-category Collado Bermejo. “A Movistar rider crashed on the descent. He was screaming at us because he was off the road and no one saw him. I was asking the mechanic if we had a phone number for Movistar. We couldn’t stop because we had Contador on the attack. If he had a race radio, he could call for help and get taken care of.”

“The races will be even more controlled than before. Teams will not take risks. The races will be a lot more boring,” he said. “Our sponsors pay a lot of money to have our stars win bike races. Look at our situation today. I was in the lead car, there were motorcycles everywhere, fans were on the road, the road was narrow. We couldn’t pass or move forward. We could not communicate with our riders in any way.”

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

So many ways to translate that. The whole safety issue is almost laughable at this point with all the chicken littles complaining about the falling sky without their radios.

I say sure, let the riders have ear pieces, and the only information available is from the race director for safety. No contact with the team car. This way the racers race, not the old, overweight, out of shape ex-racer directors.

I'd even go so far to say that I think team cars could be limited on some stages/sections, with only neutral service available. Fair? I don't know, but it would definitely be more interesting.

 

[Francois the Postman]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/03/news/saxos-bjarne-riis-blasts-uci-over-radio-ban_162553

Riis:

Riis, why don't you argue for a radio system which has alarms + safety messages form independent sources, but that take DS commincation out of the equation, if it is all about safety?

And that it becomes more controlled or become more boring is a nice theory, but that presumes that teams are still able to impose that level of "total control to perfection" as it happens now, or that no team will take a risk. Cue Vacansoleil, etc.

What are they gonna do, not allow any escape to get away ever? That will tire them out quickly enough. Not give any escape a margin over x mins? Ditto. Not lose the ability to communicate with all members of a team? Let's all follow Contador up that hill then, or not send a guy with the escaping group.

More controlled than with radios? Impossible.

Without a DS making key calls at key moments, the simple truth is teams won't be able to keep that level of control, as the communication streams needed for that level of control are no longer there, and riders have shown time and time again that when fatigue creeps in, and uncertainty starts to play a role, the wrong choices are made.

Ask TvG how afraid he is that he will be making the wrong call.

Plus teams are no longer able to hit the front hard with their main man taking a bit easier in the back, knowing that the moment he has a flat, they can be commandeered to his aid. Now they will have to choose, keep the main man surrounded, or tire the main man out a bit more, by forcing him to expose himself attentive at the front, with the rest of them.

Etc, etc.

Riders need to show their race awareness more. Teams need to show their own on the road organisational skills more. They are key cycling skills that have been made less important than they ought to be.

All I hear is DSs afraid to lose their ability to call the shots, and each safety issue is being used a the smoke screen. But what I never hear is one of these outraged DSs proposing a solution that addresses the safety without "the DS bonus". And they are hardly up on the barricades about the other issues that affect their riders' health and safety. Make a big stand on the start line of the TdF about draconian dope tests, so no rider ever needs to take that sort of life threatening risk again. Then I believe you take health and safety as serious as you are claiming just now.

So if they are suddenly so concerned for their rider's health, what is the real difference here? Not health. Not safety. Something about particular issue this worries them a lot. The only difference: their control.

All I need to know.

 

[Suedehead]

Riis, why don't you argue for a radio system which has alarms + safety messages form independent sources, but that take DS commincation out of the equation, if it is all about safety?

Etc... .

I agree completely.

 

[ksmith]

Riis 'we couldnt stop because we had Contador the attack'. So much for safety.

 

[cyclingPRpro]

guess it's time to mandate steel and downtube shifters... how about banning caffeine again.

 

[jens_attacks]

pro cycling....the only world where you can ban absolutely everything!