SRM's and Radio ban??

mfin

Always lots of talk of Radios changing the racing for the worse....

But, maybe SRMs would be a worth knocking out of the equation, riding to power numbers has maybe just as big an effect as radio on the racing from how it was years ago?? Would the racing be better without them?

disgruntledgoat

Doesn't matter to my mind... If you can't follow, you can't follow regardless of what the numbers are telling you. It would only make a difference if you knew what the other guy was riding to.

iainf72

I'd love someone to explain to me how power meters could affect the outcome of a race.

greasedscotsman

Don't ban them, just remove the minimum weight restriction, really can't see any point in that. Wonder how many teams/riders would use them if that was removed.

jibberjim

iainf72 wrote:

I'd love someone to explain to me how power meters could affect the outcome of a race.

You saw it the other day almost certainly, although Sagan only came 2nd it still significantly changed the result - his break companions attacked on the final climb but Sagan just carried on riding to his Power Meter to avoid blowing up. It meant he caught them later and changed the tactics at the end of the stage. Had he tried to follow the attack rather than riding at what he knew to be his max sustainable wattage he'd've been dropped almost certainly and not recovered.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

I'd love someone to explain to me how power meters could affect the outcome of a race.

Makes it easier to measure your efforts.

disgruntledgoat

jibberjim wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I'd love someone to explain to me how power meters could affect the outcome of a race.

You saw it the other day almost certainly, although Sagan only came 2nd it still significantly changed the result - his break companions attacked on the final climb but Sagan just carried on riding to his Power Meter to avoid blowing up. It meant he caught them later and changed the tactics at the end of the stage. Had he tried to follow the attack rather than riding at what he knew to be his max sustainable wattage he'd've been dropped almost certainly and not recovered.

But why would he try to go with 2 guys who are 10kgs lighter than him... Any rider who can't follow an accellaration uphill will always try to ride back on at their own pace, reckoning that the attacker is going above what they can ride at for a prolonged period.

Pross

I think we have seen with the way Sky are riding, everything is controlled by how many watts they know they can maintain over a certain time. If a rider rides away they just keep plugging along at that fixed value and generally the rider comes back. If they don't know their numbers they could go too hard and blow up or conversely not go hard enough and fail to catch them. Don't feed them any physiological data and they will have to ride on feel with all the risks associated with that rather than riding by numbers. Record and analyse the data by all means but don't provide it in real time. Strangely I've just raised exactly this issue on the thread about why the Tour is so boring this year (in reality it isn't much more boring than most other years IMHO), the natural progression is to have the DS monitoring rider data in the team car and using them like a computer game telling them when to attack etc.

disgruntledgoat

But surely there is a factor here which cannot be factored into that, which is fatigue over a 3 week race. We saw last week that Porte could only manage 500m on the front when his turn came. Your nightmare scenario can't account for attrition over a 3 week race.

Likewise, you say that they'll rely on them coming back if they ride for a certain time at a fixed value, but how can they know this without knowing what power the guy they're chasing is putting out and how long he can sustain it for.

greasedscotsman

disgruntledgoat wrote:

But surely there is a factor here which cannot be factored into that, which is fatigue over a 3 week race. We saw last week that Porte could only manage 500m on the front when his turn came. Your nightmare scenario can't account for attrition over a 3 week race.

You can account for it if you've been measuring riders power outputs for several years.

Pross

disgruntledgoat wrote:

But surely there is a factor here which cannot be factored into that, which is fatigue over a 3 week race. We saw last week that Porte could only manage 500m on the front when his turn came. Your nightmare scenario can't account for attrition over a 3 week race.

Likewise, you say that they'll rely on them coming back if they ride for a certain time at a fixed value, but how can they know this without knowing what power the guy they're chasing is putting out and how long he can sustain it for.

Maybe - we still have most of the week left and I'm not one of those prepared to write this year's Tour off as a dud (last year people were moaning about the Pyrenees being crap). Just that up until now I think that technology has meant the race has been so controlled. If they aren't using the power meter in that way then why bother having it on the bike. I just feel that the riders aren't prepared to go against the data so if chasing means going 20 watts higher than they know they can sustain then they won't risk it as they might go pop and lose even more time. If the rider rides away from them then they just say "we rode as hard as we could but he was too strong".

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I'd love someone to explain to me how power meters could affect the outcome of a race.

Makes it easier to measure your efforts.

So as a cynical friend said

No problem with that. He deserves credit if he's trained to know exactly what power he can sustain that far into a grand tour, on a stage where he's already made x efforts, and to then factor in how far it is to the top of the climb, how the descent recovery is going to affect him and then how much power he can then apply, taking all that into account, to get to the finish.

The guy's a supercomputer.

rick_chasey

Yeah, maybe.

I do increasingly think race radios affect the race though.

There have been many instances while I've been watching the smaller Belgian one day races sans radios and it has provided a tactical conundrum for riders. Not enormous ones sure, but they all add up.

r0bh

I would expect a pro rider to have a pretty good idea of how many watts they are pushing from their perceived exertion. I don't think that banning powermeters would have a huge effect on races

ocdupalais

Initially, I'd say take SRM's out.
For the moment, I'd say that they utterly skew the way races are ridden*.
e.g. 1.

Pross wrote:

I just feel that the riders aren't prepared to go against the data so if chasing means going 20 watts higher than they know they can sustain then they won't risk it as they might go pop and lose even more time.

Yup - if you were racing at, or close to, what you know is your threshold power output (for a sustained effort of say 5 min) and a competitor attacks; what is your response? With a SRM you would be inclined to refer to it to measure that response: after all, if you trust the theory and technology behind it all (which you probably do, seeing as it's on your bike), then you'd be a fool not to stick to your known limits. Does computer say 'yes' or 'no'?
Take the SRM away and you might fancy your chances and attempt to stay with the attacker. Then who knows what's going to happen?

e.g. 2. The strong teams - this year it's Sky - go to the front on the climbs and "hit the numbers" by referring to their SRM's: in the last 2 stage races Wiggins's team have done (Dauphiné and Tour) I can only think of one rider, once, who has escaped their pace on the climbs and made it stick: Quintana in the Dauphiné

e.g. 3. Why has there been a general trend for riders to leave their attacks until the last few Km on climbs, even on monsters like the Stelvio or Galibier (Schleck aside)? Because generally, the average power outputs sustainable by the top riders are all relatively quite close: what the absolute best climbers are usually able to do is attain peak spikes that drop the others (see Contador and Schleck duking it out), before only managing a winning margin of a handful of seconds.


My feeling is that we have to resist and limit technology in races when it comes to SRMs and radios. To me they seek to manage the unexpected and the uncontrollable. I want to see spur-of-the-moment decisions made on the road that defy the DS's game plan, throw caution to the wind and leave everyone unsure how it's all going to pan out (other clichés are available).


*I say 'initially' and 'for the moment', because maybe, if everybody rides with SRMs, race organisers will factor this in and start designing particularly variable courses - not that I see that achieving much. Also, perhaps, everyone racing with SRMs might adapt in a positive way that we haven't foreseen yet.

ocdupalais

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I'd love someone to explain to me how power meters could affect the outcome of a race.

Makes it easier to measure your efforts.

So as a cynical friend said

No problem with that. He deserves credit if he's trained to know exactly what power he can sustain that far into a grand tour, on a stage where he's already made x efforts, and to then factor in how far it is to the top of the climb, how the descent recovery is going to affect him and then how much power he can then apply, taking all that into account, to get to the finish.

The guy's a supercomputer.

All of that stuff will have been analysed endlessly every night by his team who will then be barking in his ear to keep it to certain thresholds - and informing him of every relevant aspect of the route ahead, if necessary; generally, I'd imagine, they'd be erring on the side of caution, too.

mfin

Of course, for some riders, with blood values being changed mid-race with transfusions, it must be better to 'ride on feel' than any hypothetical sustained wattages as the sustained wattages will change. Less BPM needed for a given circulation of oxygen in the blood volume etc etc... but, I diverse.

There also has to be a case for a third thing, taking away HRMs.

If everyone was left with nothing but a Speed/Cadence computer and a Radio telling them safety announcements, then this would make for the purest (and safest) kind of racing? ...maybe the radio should still be able them to 'call in' they have mechanical problems etc, but thats it.

I'm not saying these things should all be done, but it would change the racing. Certainly a more merited discussion than banning sideburns, dictating shaving preferences, or colour of socks and shoes.

LangerDan

mfin wrote:

There also has to be a case for a third thing, taking away HRMs.

If everyone was left with nothing but a Speed/Cadence computer and a Radio telling them safety announcements, then this would make for the purest (and safest) kind of racing? ...maybe the radio should still be able them to 'call in' they have mechanical problems etc, but thats it.
.

Power meters are very "obvious" technology and easy to spot. HRMs can be a bit more difficult to control - even some watches can measure heartrate by placing your finger on an IR sensor on the face. In any case, what's to stop a rider taking his own pulse (assuming he's able to at that stage)?

LangerDan

greasedscotsman wrote:

Don't ban them, just remove the minimum weight restriction, really can't see any point in that. Wonder how many teams/riders would use them if that was removed.

One of the French cycling magazines publishes a table of bike weights for perhaps a dozen of the TdF riders each year. Surprising how many of them are over 6.8kg - in some cases significantly over. They mustn't be that concerned about weight.

disgruntledgoat

LangerDan wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

Don't ban them, just remove the minimum weight restriction, really can't see any point in that. Wonder how many teams/riders would use them if that was removed.

One of the French cycling magazines publishes a table of bike weights for perhaps a dozen of the TdF riders each year. Surprising how many of them are over 6.8kg - in some cases significantly over. They mustn't be that concerned about weight.

Stiffness is preferred, I believe. A lot of pros use a smaller frame with a longer stem to cut the weight without losing any stiffness.

mfin

disgruntledgoat wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

Don't ban them, just remove the minimum weight restriction, really can't see any point in that. Wonder how many teams/riders would use them if that was removed.

One of the French cycling magazines publishes a table of bike weights for perhaps a dozen of the TdF riders each year. Surprising how many of them are over 6.8kg - in some cases significantly over. They mustn't be that concerned about weight.

Stiffness is preferred, I believe. A lot of pros use a smaller frame with a longer stem to cut the weight without losing any stiffness.

A lot of the time bike fits tend to be a bit wrong too, smaller frame and longer stem is not the norm so much nowadays, so its not just all down to weight/stiffness (although yes, it can help). Riding the smallest frame that fits you, that you can make fit, especially when you're stuck with one manufacturers range of sizes in the model you are given, it makes sense on all levels. (defintely makes sense if you can have size A or B in a frame and A's a bit small and B's a bit big, and that must apply a lot of times with so many riders out there having to ride a specific bike)

greasedscotsman

disgruntledgoat wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

Don't ban them, just remove the minimum weight restriction, really can't see any point in that. Wonder how many teams/riders would use them if that was removed.

One of the French cycling magazines publishes a table of bike weights for perhaps a dozen of the TdF riders each year. Surprising how many of them are over 6.8kg - in some cases significantly over. They mustn't be that concerned about weight.

Stiffness is preferred, I believe. A lot of pros use a smaller frame with a longer stem to cut the weight without losing any stiffness.

I think you would see different bikes being used on different stages. Don't think you would see many bikes with SRMs (or similar systems) on mountain stages.

But regardless of that, I would still like to see the weight restriction removed, I can't see what he benefit is. I think it was brought in because of concerns that frames were becoming too fragile, but then surely some sort of strength test is more appropriate. Or if any kit that's used has to be available to buy, then no frame/cycle manufacturer is going to develop a product that is going to collapse after a couple of uses.

mfin

greasedscotsman wrote:

I think it was brought in because of concerns that frames were becoming too fragile.

Derek Colnago falls into that line of thinking if you read what he's said about his recent frames being a little heavier than some. (not sure I agree with him myself, but he's built a few hundred thousand more bikes than me)

greasedscotsman

But I would definately remove radios. I don't believe racing would suddenly become amazingly exciting, I just like the idea that it's the riders who should decide the race, not some fat guy sat in a car watching the race on a TV, maybe monitoring SRM data and then giving out orders over a radio.

mfin

greasedscotsman wrote:

But I would definitely remove radios. I don't believe racing would suddenly become amazingly exciting, I just like the idea that it's the riders who should decide the race, not some fat guy sat in a car watching the race on a TV, maybe monitoring SRM data and then giving out orders over a radio.

I agree, although a safety announcement radio for riders with which they could also talk back to one source for mechnical issues, and that source then passes on these requests for bike/wheel changes to the team cars would be alright.

ocdupalais

mfin wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

But I would definitely remove radios. I don't believe racing would suddenly become amazingly exciting, I just like the idea that it's the riders who should decide the race, not some fat guy sat in a car watching the race on a TV, maybe monitoring SRM data and then giving out orders over a radio.

I agree, although a safety announcement radio for riders with which they could also talk back to one source for mechnical issues, and that source then passes on these requests for bike/wheel changes to the team cars would be alright.

Yep.

I think there has been collusion amongst the team management, DS's and (perhaps to a lesser extent) the riders on the subject of race radios. In what work-place would the bosses not want MORE control, with the workers having LESS responsibility over key decisions?

greasedscotsman

OCDuPalais wrote:

Yep.

I think there has been collusion amongst the team management, DS's and (perhaps to a lesser extent) the riders on the subject of race radios. In what work-place would the bosses not want MORE control, with the workers having LESS responsibility over key decisions?

Unfourtunately that's why radios will be part of pro racing for some time.

mididoctors

r0bh wrote:

I would expect a pro rider to have a pretty good idea of how many watts they are pushing from their perceived exertion. I don't think that banning powermeters would have a huge effect on races

then why have them?

you see the contradiction..if they can already tell on feel?

I think riding to the numbers negates attacks a lot especially when there are teams with numbers at the front of the race

Anonymous

I think intra-team radios would be quite good too, so you can get a proper teamwork vibe going on. Just less chat from directors

Mad_Malx

The next step could be telemetric monitoring of blood values - devices transmitting (say) glucose & pH to the DS. This is certainly technologically feasible, with other metabolic indicators possible too. Is any of this covered in regulations?

It is sad that the technology is limiting the heroic-but-doomed (or successful) attack, and is likely to lead to increased tours won by the highly efficient but rather less exciting diesels.

thomthom

What a completely breath of fresh air it was to see Voeckler riding without anything on the stage 16. No radio and no power meter. Just stuck to his own knowledge about himself and his limits. On the last descent he had to ask his SD about the time gap to Chris Anker since he had little to no knowledge of what had happend behind him.

At the same time you could follow a Boasson Hagen in the front of the peloton, conquering the big mountains, riding with a computer on his handlebars which told him what to and exactly how long he could do it...