Bikes - 'Level Playing Field'

frenchfighter

disgruntledgoat wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Nice DG. Obree is admirable. I remember something he said about him climbing hills in the big ring to develop power.

It's in his book I think. Well worth a read, if very uncomfortable in parts. He got me started doing the same thing for a while, training for hillclimbs by riding up little hills seated in not just the big ring but the 12 sprocket too. I was just doing it on piddly little hills, of course. Obree was doing it for 5km climbs up in the highlands.

5km climbs at that cadence :shock:

lfcquin

I could be wrong on this, but when I read about how British Cycling has built its advantages then they talk about "the details". I read this as meaning equipment, but also training, recovery, mental fitness - the whole package. If the UCI makes the equipment a level playing field, then there are still plenty of 1% improvements to be made elsewhere.

In terms of Boardman then my view was that his approach was exactly the same. It wasn't just because he was good at finding groundbreaking equiment that made him a world class rider. He worked hard at his overall game to make sure he took every advantage he had.

I think what Frenchfighter is sort of getting at is that this approach isn't particlarly romantic and gaining an advantage through science doesn't get the juices flowing like watching someone with oodles of natural ability stomping away from the opposition.

Wiggins oozes natural ability for me. I don't think his approach is any better or worse that Boardman's, but clearly he can enjoy a few beers, take it easy for a few months and come back just as strong and full of motivation (which is the important bit). If Boardman had taken this approach then maybe he wouldn't have achieved what he did, but perhaps he would have enjoyed his time in the sport more and wouldn't have seen it as a job so much.

It's funny though how its always the Brits that seem to get the new rules to contend with though, Obree with his Superman position, Boardman with "the bike" and now the UCI suggesting that bikes need to be on the open market at the same thime that BC has a Secret Squirrel" bike.

Personally I think we should be applauding our boys for pushing the boundries all the time, whether that be technical or physical. Let "them" level the technical field, Brailsford's approach is spot on, we will still beat the rest because it is the attitude and attention to detail to everything and not just one element that is setting us apart from the rest.

lfcquin

frenchfighter wrote:

Nice DG. Obree is admirable. I remember something he said about him climbing hills in the big ring to develop power.

Just because Boardman didn't quote it, then don't think he didn't do this. Some of his training was epic! I can only talk about his Manchester Wheelers days and earlier, because I was riding the same roads with the same clubs and witnessed some of this.

disquieting_museeuws

On the Boardman not liking cycling thing, I do remember him saying this more than once back when he was riding, but it's easy to take these things out of context - most of us moan about our jobs at some point after all.

I think one thing that changed my mind somewhat over CB was him challenging the 'Merckx' hour record on a drop handlebar bike at the end of his career, to prove that he could do it without the technology - it showed a real respect for the history of the sport and the ideal of the level playing field. I watched the whole hour record live; I thought watching a bloke going round a track for an hour would be like watching paint dry, but it turned out to be one of the most riveting and moving things I ever experienced in sport. For most of the ride he was way behind Merckx but he found the reserves from somewhere to beat the record by a few metres in his last ride as a competitive cyclist. I was surprised he took the record (the so-called 'athlete's hour') on as I always had him down as a technophile with not that much feeling for the sport, but it showed real class that he did it.

disgruntledgoat

disquieting_museeuws wrote:

On the Boardman not liking cycling thing, I do remember him saying this more than once back when he was riding, but it's easy to take these things out of context - most of us moan about our jobs at some point after all.

I think one thing that changed my mind somewhat over CB was him challenging the 'Merckx' hour record on a drop handlebar bike at the end of his career, to prove that he could do it without the technology - it showed a real respect for the history of the sport and the ideal of the level playing field. I watched the whole hour record live; I thought watching a bloke going round a track for an hour would be like watching paint dry, but it turned out to be one of the most riveting and moving things I ever experienced in sport. For most of the ride he was way behind Merckx but he found the reserves from somewhere to beat the record by a few metres in his last ride as a competitive cyclist. I was surprised he took the record (the so-called 'athlete's hour') on as I always had him down as a technophile with not that much feeling for the sport, but it showed real class that he did it.

+ Several.

RichN95.

The thing with BC and there technology is the actual advantages are very small - the biggest advantages are psychological. If competitors think BC have access to some groundbreaking technology that gives them a huge advantage, then they're half beaten before they even get to the track.

BC made a big deal of the skinsuits being shreaded, saying that didn't want anyone getting their hands on the 'top secret' technology. The reality is that anyone can look at the patent applications for it online.

In truth, almost all of the kit they use is available to the general public, they just spend more time researching different combinations.

FJS

NervexProf wrote:

An extract from the 'Times' today:

'If beating Britain on the track does not work, the authorities have another plot. The UCI, cycling’s world governing body, is planning to introduce a rule from January 1 that all competition bikes are available for sale in an effort to rein in the exotic prototypes that have been propelling Team GB to such staggering success.
Britain’s prowess at blending man — and woman — and machine has been the envy of the world and plenty in the sport believe that this is a last-ditch attempt to curb their domination.
But Brailsford dismissed the threat, confident that his team, a heady blend of daring youth and powerful experience, could beat anyone — and on any machine.
“We are quite happy to share our technology,” he said. “We will share whatever we have got. I can’t share what I have got in my head, but we can go back to everybody rides the same skinsuits and the same bikes and I still think we would win'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 898732.ece

I take it this ruling will apply to the Road as well?

Will it make much difference?

That's a blatantly nationalistic perspective on things in that Times article - Britain against the world :?

FJS

frenchfighter wrote:

Oh. My signature should give you an idea about what I think about 'technology'...it's all about the legs. True Champions.

I've been wondering about that - nice message in that quote, but do you have the original source of the quote? It doesn't translate into Dutch or French..

redddraggon

NervexProf wrote:

I take it this ruling will apply to the Road as well?

I thought this rule already applied to the road?

frenchfighter

FJS wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Oh. My signature should give you an idea about what I think about 'technology'...it's all about the legs. True Champions.

I've been wondering about that - nice message in that quote, but do you have the original source of the quote? It doesn't translate into Dutch or French..

To be honest I don't know, just that I saw it on a 'cycling quotes' page, attributed to him...it may well be not what he said.

frenchfighter

lfcquin, good post. What you say about 'romance' is precisely one of my points.

On the issue of BC, indeed technology is only one part and their approach and innovation in other areas is interesting, useful and unique.

Britain has always been a leader in so many respects.

Bhima

If they really don't want others to use the bikes, they could just make them available to the general public for £1,000,000,000,000,000 and still be following the new rule.

Pokerface

redddraggon wrote:

NervexProf wrote:

I take it this ruling will apply to the Road as well?

I thought this rule already applied to the road?

It seems the rule does not come into effect until January 1, 2010 - for road, track, mtb, etc.

There are many questions over the rule though - as in how many they have to sell, where you can order/buy one/ it is just same model year or actual time of use, etc.

Typical UCI rule.

Ash_

I can kind of see the logic behind this. The UCI wants people to focus on the effort of the participants, not the technology. Also, they may have had their collar felt over this by the IOC - no other Olympic sport is reliant on technology to the same degree (for example in sailing, competitors are relaint on technology, but they all use the same class boat, etc.) and the IOC already want to trim down the cycling events (note that they're not fussed about doing the same with swimming).

Also, the rule is largely irrelevant as most of the major manufacturers of bikes actively want people to buy the things. Even the weird and wonderful timetrial bikes from Giant and Specialized are planned for general release.

The ruling will only be a major blow to British Cycling, and even then, it's been on the cards for some time and so I'm sure they'll work round it in some way, in fact, it's something they've probably already planned for.

Where does that leave riders who need custom geometry though? Boonen won this years Paris Roubaix on an S-Works bike that you can't get in the shops (different geometry). Will he be able to get some sort of dispensation? Or will he just have to fit himself onto a stock bike? Or will Speiclaized make up a few 'Boonen Special Edition Roubaix' bikes to get round the rule?

As usual with the UCI, it's all a bit too woolly. Probably like the jerseys riders will have to wear in 2011, with tubs round their shoulders and goggles.

frenchfighter

Ash_ wrote:

Probably like the jerseys riders will have to wear in 2011, with tubs round their shoulders and goggles.

OffTheBackAdam

The devil's in the detail!

all competition bikes are available for sale

In the good old days of World Touring cars, manufacturers had to make 500 cars to qualify.
Volvo promptly made their 500, showed them to the powers that be, got a pat on the head and their pit passes, then promptly sent the cars back to the factory, to be remanufactured into something that their buyers would actually want.
The other version is this one.
http://www.touringcartimes.com/news.php?id=3277
Where 23 cars of the 500 were to spec, the rest weren't.
Hoy's bike range, appears for sale, price £10,000 (or whatever) doubtless someone would buy one, even if none were sold, they're "available for sale" thus would comply with rules & regulations.

knedlicky

redddraggon wrote:

NervexProf wrote:

I take it this ruling will apply to the Road as well?

I thought this rule already applied to the road?

Yes, I think it was introduced last summer. And bikes mustn't be prototypes.

I’m all in favour of a ‘level playing field’ for bikes when it comes to competition. While, if you want to encourage cycling as a recreational activity and a participatory sport (as opposed to a spectator sport) I think it makes sense to have profis’ bikes available down the LBS. No point in trying to popularise a sport by using exclusive models, except if you just want spectators, like in F1.

On the other hand, perhaps the UCI don't need to be quite so restrictive - it might be worth seeing how a few TdF riders would fare on recumbents in shells in events like flat TTs! Despite recumbents often being twice as heavy as modern racing bikes, I think a few have held the (non-UCI) hour record in the last 20 years, something like 75 km when with shell (without shell, they manage about 52 km).


The danger of a ‘level playing field’ could be that manufacturers may then concentrate on only making bikes which match the UCI standard, which really only applies to bikes in competition, when there is probably still room for innovation and improvement. Although the UCI do give way eventually - like allowing sloping top tubes after first resisting, and allowing many exceptions for wheel design.

But some UCI standards seem too restrictive without reason, like minimum weight, no differening size wheels, limits on tube sections. Also why do they ban certain simple aerodynamic features (like aero wheel covers) when allowing different aerodynamic suits and helmets, or why don't they allow disc brakes, when allowing hydraulic brakes???

graeme_s-2

lfcquin wrote:

I could be wrong on this, but when I read about how British Cycling has built its advantages then they talk about "the details". I read this as meaning equipment, but also training, recovery, mental fitness - the whole package. If the UCI makes the equipment a level playing field, then there are still plenty of 1% improvements to be made elsewhere.

BC talk about their advantage coming from the "accumulation of small gains". So if you concentrate on gaining small amounts of time in lots of different places it adds up to a lot of time. I think this approach will give the Sky road team a good start.

It must be a great feeling lining up at the start of a race knowing you're part of a team that aims to gain an advantage in every (legal) area possible.

Pross

andyp wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

The problem is people like Boardman who do not like cycling (believe it or not, I read this by someone in the know whose name slips my mind) as more of a project guy. No class. The difference with someone like Wiggins is that he is an actual fan of the sport and wants to be a legend.

Are you for real?

Chris Boardman doesn't like cycling? WTF? Do you know anything about him, where he comes from, what he does?

Chris Boardman was regularly quoted in the 90's (after winning the Olympics) as having said he didn't like cycling and he only did it as he found he was good at it. He went on to say that if he'd had the same talent for a different sport he'd have done that. It's a long time ago and that's just paraphrasing but hopefully the next time he logs on he'll be able to confirm this!

EDIT Sorry, missed a page out so didn't see that others had already mentioned this :oops:

Pross

Part of Sky's deal with Pinarello involves them "producing" the GB track bikes if / when this ruling comes in. I suspect this would involve Pinarello getting the licence to the existing frames and I'm sure they'd have no problem selling a few! As all bike manufacturers are restricted by weight, tube sizes / ratios, standard triangle frame design I really don't see the need for this. We'll have to standardise thigh circumference next to make sure the cheating Brits don't have an unfair advantage there too.

moray_gub

frenchfighter wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Oh. My signature should give you an idea about what I think about 'technology'...it's all about the legs. True Champions.

This is a silly comment as it is going to the extreme. My point is simply that I care much, much more about the legs and not the bike

s.

That is a strange comment from you especially when you consider you wouldnt be seen dead on a Trek,Spesh,Scott etc .

blazing_saddles

Seems daft to have this rule apply to track bikes. Bit of a niche market, that, to say the least. Typical UCI retardeness. :roll:
FWIW: Being on a Boardman "Black", or a Dolan, doesn't appear to make much difference, timewise.

cougie

Seems like a stupid rule, the technology really isnt the massive difference that the manufacturers and their wind tunnels would like to make out. Look at road racing - theres no way one bike dominates races - it really is down to the riders.

I think the psychologic effect of having the 'best kit' is more important than the kit itself.

I'm still struggling with FF's initial message - its not good english ?

I believe that Boardman didnt enjoy the professional cycling aspect - day in and day out - but he still rides now he's retired - so clearly he doesnt hate it that much.

Pross

The bike has more impact in pursuit or time trialling I suppose. On the road in a bunch the aerodynamics don't have such a bearing.

BikingBernie

disquieting_museeuws wrote:

I think one thing that changed my mind somewhat over CB was him challenging the 'Merckx' hour record on a drop handlebar bike at the end of his career, to prove that he could do it without the technology - it showed a real respect for the history of the sport and the ideal of the level playing field.

So why did he spend hundreds of hours testing every bit of kit he used in his attempt on the 'athlete’s hour', other than to get the biggest advantage he could whilst still keeping within the UCI regulations? One thing is for sure, his bike, kit and position were a lot more aerodynamic that those Merckx had!

One thing that his ride did do was to highlight the massive advantage his ‘superman’ position and aero kit gave him in his ‘ultimate hour’ ride. In turn this also gave credence to the claims of the UCI that Obree wouldn’t have beat 48km on a ‘traditional’ bike.

BikingBernie

Pross wrote:

The bike has more impact in pursuit or time trialling I suppose. On the road in a bunch the aerodynamics don't have such a bearing.

Until you try to go up the road on your own of course, rather than sitting in the bunch following wheels.

Chip \'oyler

andyp wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

The problem is people like Boardman who do not like cycling (believe it or not, I read this by someone in the know whose name slips my mind) as more of a project guy. No class. The difference with someone like Wiggins is that he is an actual fan of the sport and wants to be a legend.

Are you for real?

Chris Boardman doesn't like cycling? WTF? Do you know anything about him, where he comes from, what he does?

You've gone a bit quiet after his Boardman quote was backed up by three sources :roll:

simon_e

knedlicky wrote:

I’m all in favour of a ‘level playing field’ for bikes when it comes to competition. While, if you want to encourage cycling as a recreational activity and a participatory sport (as opposed to a spectator sport) I think it makes sense to have profis’ bikes available down the LBS.

Oh yeah? And how many of them will you buy?

I'll bet the 2009 Scott CR1 SL Ltd Edition at £4199 and Giant TCR Advanced SL 0 (£8,499, though the 2009 bike is a mere £4995) are pretty close to being genuine team replicas. But how many of these will get sold? And how does making the pro riders do their work on publicly available models make for either "a level playing field" or increased participation? It's a joke.

Put your hand up please, the one person that would even consider buying a 'team' track bike. So what's the point, where is the market? This rule won't sell more bikes and won't create equipment parity in the peloton, though I really don't think this is an issue anyway.

However, a minimum weight stops the endless desire for a lighter bike and allows manufacturers more flexibility in other ways (tube thickness, bracing etc) which would otherwise be sacrificed/ignored in the pursuit of the least weight. I understand this, it isn't new. Skinsuits OTOH don't make a bike or rider any less stable than a wool jersey and don't cost the earth so not a problem (though I'm not saying all of the current rules make sense!).

Racing R&D drives innovation, which does feed into road-going models - STIs, BB30, carbon bars & stem, TT rigs. The Specialized tri bikes in the shops now are quite different from, even the 2007 Transition. And more expensive - the S-Works bike is £6k, but look at the extent of the exposure Cancellara's bike for the Worlds will have brought Specialized! No way that would have happened if he had been riding a stock bike. "He was on a standard S-Works with x-tooth rear". No cachet, no exclusivity, Zzzzzz....

In motorcycling the fact that the MotoGP bikes are prototypes is irrelevant - success sells, it always has. The idea that showroom 1000cc road bikes bear more than a vague resemblance to the World or BSB superbikes is laughable.

frenchfighter

Just to be accurate, the exact quote from Shane Sutton (yes I did remember correctly) is below. I cannot provide a link as it wasn't online.

He is talking about the transition from top pursuiter to GT rider and why Wiggins has done it and Boardman hasn't.

"The answer is desire and love of cycling. I work with Chris. I like and respect him a lot, but the simple thing is he didn't like cycling. If he was here and now, he'd tell you the same"

Tom Butcher

Simon E wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

I’m all in favour of a ‘level playing field’ for bikes when it comes to competition. While, if you want to encourage cycling as a recreational activity and a participatory sport (as opposed to a spectator sport) I think it makes sense to have profis’ bikes available down the LBS.

Oh yeah? And how many of them will you buy?

To be fair there are quite a few frames sold that are the same as the pros ride - I've got a Look 585 (admittedly it was a bargain upgrade because they couldn't get the 555 I wanted) and I see plenty of others who ride frames that are or were the same model as the pros ride. My bike cost 2k minus seatpost and saddle - that was with Ksyriums and Centaur.