McQuaid bites back!
Comments
-
JV and his cronies will say it's a team sport and the DS should be involved.
I think my main objection is to do with the exclusion of the fans and spectators from a big part of that. We don't see and hear much of the important stuff that's going on between rider and DS and that alienates the fan quite a bit.
Even if F1, though I don't like the analogy generally, TV quite often airs the team radio broadcasts. I've never heard that in cycling. .
I want to know that what I'm seeing on the TV is what's actually going on. That the rider knows only what he sees and feels around him, not what the DS can see on his TV screen in the car.
Iain - you may well be right about teams bringing back the breakaway before radios, but radios certainly make it easier. Some fo the most exciting racing, in my view, has been when the teams have got it all wrong in spite of radios and riders have found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, the team has underestimated the gap etc.
" Why not ban them for a year and see whether it's the case or not? "
I assume you mean radios and not HTC :-) If so, then yes, I'd agree with that. I don't think conclusions can be drawn on one or two races, as some are trying to do so far this season, but a whole Giro or Tour without radios? Let's see.0 -
I've read the inner ring peice, which is interesting, but there are a lot more variables at play between racing 1991-1996 and 2001-2005. Radios are just one factor.
I wonder if anyone could draw conclusions about doping and the effect different drugs and methods have had on racing by looking at the data from those two periods. Atfer all, I'd have thought EPO use in 2001-2005 would lead to some breakaways being absolutely unstoppable with huge winning margins.0 -
iainf72 wrote:The peloton used to time catches to perfection in the old days too.
I'm not so sure this is the case - I know that there used to be bunch finishes because abdou vs zabel vs supermario were regular features in the tour when I was younger, but there were times when a break would survive - and it wouldn't be the train catching the escapee right on the 1km kite like you see every time (and other riders would have a go, trying fresh breaks, joining the escape to give it fresh legs)
gingerflash - the epo fuelled breaks were caught by epo fuelled pelotons ;-)"I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
iainf72 wrote:
Almost.
The conclusion is that the peleton spends mroe energy when breaks are succesful.
Surely that's a good thing from a selection perspective?0 -
Anyway, surely in the classics is where it matters more -
Who's made the split, who hasn't, who's coming up, who, by watching the TV looks tired?
Het Volk was a good example - Flecha was chasing Langeveld man against man.
But just as Flecha got close, he clearly collapsed and looked a broken man - had there been radios, he'd have heard about that from the radio, and perhaps decided to go for the solo-win. Instead, knowing Flecha had been catching him, he thought it best to wait.
That's when radios matter.
Who cares if a break gets caught or not on a flat stage race day? Wins from the break of the day are often just, if not more boring than a bunch sprint.
If you don't like boring flat stages with sprint finishes - avoid those stages in the stage races.0 -
Gingerflash wrote:I've read the inner ring peice, which is interesting, but there are a lot more variables at play between racing 1991-1996 and 2001-2005. Radios are just one factor.
I wonder if anyone could draw conclusions about doping and the effect different drugs and methods have had on racing by looking at the data from those two periods. Atfer all, I'd have thought EPO use in 2001-2005 would lead to some breakaways being absolutely unstoppable with huge winning margins.
I think EPO use affected a few results between 1991 and 1996 as well
0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Het Volk was a good example - Flecha was chasing Langeveld man against man.
But just as Flecha got close, he clearly collapsed and looked a broken man - had there been radios, he'd have heard about that from the radio, and perhaps decided to go for the solo-win. Instead, knowing Flecha had been catching him, he thought it best to wait.
That's when radios matter.
Presumably, the DS in the car behind him can just drive up alongside him and tell him (and probably did). Or shout at him if necessary.
The thing to do is keep the radios but ban TVs in the car (which I think some races do).Twitter: @RichN950 -
Rabo had loudhailers on the roof to compensate for the lack of radios.
As for the evidence, I don't see much. It's just that irks me, we see both sides making bold claims about revitalising racing or guaranteeing safety but there's nothing to suggest the presence of ear pieces makes much difference.0 -
Kléber wrote:Rabo had loudhailers on the roof to compensate for the lack of radios.
As for the evidence, I don't see much. It's just that irks me, we see both sides making bold claims about revitalising racing or guaranteeing safety but there's nothing to suggest the presence of ear pieces makes much difference.
Only one way to find out...
Try it!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
Only one way to find out...
Try it!
They have. It made no difference.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Het Volk was a good example - Flecha was chasing Langeveld man against man.
But just as Flecha got close, he clearly collapsed and looked a broken man - had there been radios, he'd have heard about that from the radio, and perhaps decided to go for the solo-win. Instead, knowing Flecha had been catching him, he thought it best to wait.
That's when radios matter.
A good example of how I think radios could influence the result too much. I prefer the fact that Langeveld didn't get the tip-off to put the hammer down through an earpiece, and was left to make his own call on the road.0 -
RichN95 wrote:According to CyclingNews, there are 11 teams considering breaking away from the UCI, with RCS perhaps involved.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/11-major-teams-considering-plans-to-break-away-from-the-uci
(Just for fun, my guess at the 11: Garmin, Radioshack, HTC, Sky, Geox, Rabobank, Saxo, Liquigas, BMC, Astana, Movistar)
Interesting to see what SKY do - given they are linked to BC (though I'm not sure how closely ?).
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Agent57 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Het Volk was a good example - Flecha was chasing Langeveld man against man.
But just as Flecha got close, he clearly collapsed and looked a broken man - had there been radios, he'd have heard about that from the radio, and perhaps decided to go for the solo-win. Instead, knowing Flecha had been catching him, he thought it best to wait.
That's when radios matter.
A good example of how I think radios could influence the result too much. I prefer the fact that Langeveld didn't get the tip-off to put the hammer down through an earpiece, and was left to make his own call on the road.
Indeed, that's my point.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
Only one way to find out...
Try it!
They have. It made no difference.
When? Surely you'd need to do it season long.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
When? Surely you'd need to do it season long.
And then when that doesn't make any difference, it will be "'well, we need to do it for 3 years so the culture changes"
If you want races to be more exciting, randomly introduce dodgy road conditions, have huge portable wind machines etc. Lots of people are saying MSR was good because of the crash - Maybe we should introduce crashes to make things more interesting!Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
Only one way to find out...
Try it!
They have. It made no difference.
I think most people would disagree with that. Obviously it's very hard to prove instances either way as we aren't privy to the radio communication. However when things happen in a race that are unexpected that having a DS with a TV in the car to tell you exactly what is happening and co-ordinate a response - not just within your team but with other teams - that has to affect the race.
I'm thinking of instances such as Ulrich's attack where CSC worked with Discovery to save Basso's place on GC. Many people thought at the time that if Basso had attacked Armstrong then the race would have been wide open between the three of them. We can't prove what would have happened without radios but we know from what Jens Voight said afterwards that Riis gave the order for his team to take the more conservative tactic and hold what they had.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:I'm thinking of instances such as Ulrich's attack where CSC worked with Discovery to save Basso's place on GC. Many people thought at the time that if Basso had attacked Armstrong then the race would have been wide open between the three of them. We can't prove what would have happened without radios but we know from what Jens Voight said afterwards that Riis gave the order for his team to take the more conservative tactic and hold what they had.
That sort of thing happened before radios. The DS just drove his car up alongside the rider.Twitter: @RichN950 -
iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
When? Surely you'd need to do it season long.
And then when that doesn't make any difference, it will be "'well, we need to do it for 3 years so the culture changes"
If you want races to be more exciting, randomly introduce dodgy road conditions, have huge portable wind machines etc. Lots of people are saying MSR was good because of the crash - Maybe we should introduce crashes to make things more interesting!
Surely you'd need to see it in all conditions (as you'd see over a season period) to see whether it does work. That way, all the other variables would be evened out. No need to experiment for more than 1 season.0 -
RichN95 wrote:Tom Butcher wrote:I'm thinking of instances such as Ulrich's attack where CSC worked with Discovery to save Basso's place on GC. Many people thought at the time that if Basso had attacked Armstrong then the race would have been wide open between the three of them. We can't prove what would have happened without radios but we know from what Jens Voight said afterwards that Riis gave the order for his team to take the more conservative tactic and hold what they had.
That sort of thing happened before radios. The DS just drove his car up alongside the rider.
You make it sound like the car is always right behind the rider.
Of course there will still be occasions when the DS can make decisions but at the very least they wont be able to make the snap decisions to go with an attack or not.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:
You make it sound like the car is always right behind the rider.
Of course there will still be occasions when the DS can make decisions but at the very least they wont be able to make the snap decisions to go with an attack or not.
There's usually a car behind riders in the breakaway, which Voigt was, and riders in key positions, just as there was a car behind Langeveld in an earlier mentioned example.
You make it sound as though DSs are in the car barking "Attack, chase, stay" like the rider is some sort of dog. I think the reality is probably a lot different (a couple of DSs might be like that though).
Banning radios it isn't some sort of magic bullet which will transform the sport. Teams are more likely to react conservatively rather than aggressive, tactics wise, That's what sports teams usually do with rule changes.
As I've said before, keep the radios, ban TVs in the car instead.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Tom Butcher wrote:iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
Only one way to find out...
Try it!
They have. It made no difference.
I think most people would disagree with that. Obviously it's very hard to prove instances either way as we aren't privy to the radio communication. However when things happen in a race that are unexpected that having a DS with a TV in the car to tell you exactly what is happening and co-ordinate a response - not just within your team but with other teams - that has to affect the race.
I'm thinking of instances such as Ulrich's attack where CSC worked with Discovery to save Basso's place on GC. Many people thought at the time that if Basso had attacked Armstrong then the race would have been wide open between the three of them. We can't prove what would have happened without radios but we know from what Jens Voight said afterwards that Riis gave the order for his team to take the more conservative tactic and hold what they had.
IMO a very weak example, cant remember exactly but there were still something like 50ks to go in the stage are you saying that this info could not have been conveyed without race radios ?Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
RichN95 wrote:Tom Butcher wrote:
Banning radios it isn't some sort of magic bullet which will transform the sport. Teams are more likely to react conservatively rather than aggressive, tactics wise, That's what sports teams usually do with rule changes.
.
You are right about teams reacting conservatively i a reminded of when football brought in the passback rule everybody thought teams playing defensive and protecting what they had where a thing of the past and that football was going to enter a brave new all attacking world...........yea we know how that one turned out.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:You are right about teams reacting conservatively i a reminded of when football brought in the passback rule everybody thought teams playing defensive and protecting what they had where a thing of the past and that football was going to enter a brave new all attacking world...........yea we know how that one turned out.
The same happened in hockey when they did away with offside. It was meant to bring more goals, but initially it isolated one of the strikers and increased the reliance on set pieces, as everyone went more defensive.
Eventually goals did go up, but that was due to major advances in stick technology. (At least it was one less thing for the umpires to worry about).Twitter: @RichN950 -
Bizarrely Formula 1 are talking about introducing sprinklers on the track to liven things up. I had to check the date, 1 April is not far away.iainf72 wrote:If you want races to be more exciting, randomly introduce dodgy road conditions, have huge portable wind machines etc. Lots of people are saying MSR was good because of the crash - Maybe we should introduce crashes to make things more interesting!0 -
Well, to be absolutely accurate, Bernie Ecclestone's talking about it, and everyone else is saying he's an idiot. Last year his bright idea was to have shortcuts built into the track, which the drivers could take a certain number of times a race. Bernie comes out with ideas much dafter than Vaughters' 10-point plan all the time - he's just testing the water and generating discussion. No one takes it seriously.Kléber wrote:
Bizarrely Formula 1 are talking about introducing sprinklers on the track to liven things up. I had to check the date, 1 April is not far away.iainf72 wrote:If you want races to be more exciting, randomly introduce dodgy road conditions, have huge portable wind machines etc. Lots of people are saying MSR was good because of the crash - Maybe we should introduce crashes to make things more interesting!N00b commuter with delusions of competence
FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?0 -
iainf72 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
Only one way to find out...
Try it!
They have. It made no difference.
IIRC it was during a flatish stage of the tour, and wasn't there talk of the riders riding boringly as a sort of protest?
Hardly a fair test, the riders favour radios, it's in their interest to ride boringly in a show piece that's meant to make radio-less riding look exciting.
If on the other hand, it was trialled for a whole year, we may see different results...You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
I'm sure the Belgians will be happy - they've been going on about Nuyens for years.
Every year for the past three has been the year he has to do something else be branded wasted talent.0 -
Moray Gub wrote:RichN95 wrote:Tom Butcher wrote:
Banning radios it isn't some sort of magic bullet which will transform the sport. Teams are more likely to react conservatively rather than aggressive, tactics wise, That's what sports teams usually do with rule changes.
.
You are right about teams reacting conservatively i a reminded of when football brought in the passback rule everybody thought teams playing defensive and protecting what they had where a thing of the past and that football was going to enter a brave new all attacking world...........yea we know how that one turned out.
That was Rich's quote not mine - but the passback rule in football is an improvement - no question.
As for Rich's line about it not transforming the sport - nobody is saying it will - it'll transform some races though and mostly for the better. If nothing else it puts more of the decision making back in the hands of the riders and isn't that what the sport of cycling is about - competition between cyclists not blokes sat in a car watching TV ?
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0
