Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Race Radios (NOT) Banned in 2015

13

Posts

  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,176
    I don't understand the make the races shorter argument. It's like saying that the marathon would be more entertaining if the distance was shortened, perhaps to 100m. Most pro bike races are endurance events, and therefore required some distance, there is the track for people who like their entertainment served up more quickly.

    Reducing team sizes would be the most effective way to reduce an individual's team's control, but that is unlikely to happen.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    What would probably happen, without radios, is, in the important big races, they racing would be completely closed down by the bigger teams, with little space given to anyone else.

    If reducing the information available is going to improve racing, surely we should be campaigning to keep race routes secret from everyone but the organisers?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,273
    TheBigBean wrote:
    I don't understand the make the races shorter argument. It's like saying that the marathon would be more entertaining if the distance was shortened, perhaps to 100m. Most pro bike races are endurance events, and therefore required some distance, there is the track for people who like their entertainment served up more quickly.
    Shorter lengths make breakaways more viable prospects and therefore encourage them. (It only probably works in conjunction with smaller teams - and decent route planning)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • I'm quite happy to watch all of a race, not one for popping back for the last 10km. The truth is we don't really know how much info is being transmitted to riders during a race because we don't have continuous in car viewing. I think it is obvious though that time gaps can be micro managed if someone has continuous access to TV pictures and then to riders.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 55,960 Lives Here
    iainf72 wrote:
    What would probably happen, without radios, is, in the important big races, they racing would be completely closed down by the bigger teams, with little space given to anyone else.

    If reducing the information available is going to improve racing, surely we should be campaigning to keep race routes secret from everyone but the organisers?

    There are a few 'biggish' races that already are sans radio. It's only WT races that have them - across all of road cycling.

    I don't see what you're saying playing out particularly.
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    There are a few 'biggish' races that already are sans radio. It's only WT races that have them - across all of road cycling.

    I don't see what you're saying playing out particularly.

    And by and large, are those races more interesting, or do people care about them more than WT races?
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,003
    The romantic in me would like to see the end of race radios (the sadist in me wants to see them ride on steel frames and fixed gears) but I can't see it doing all that much to make racing more exciting.

    Essentially, it's all about information. I'm fairly sure teams start a race with a strategy and adapt tactics on the road to deal with new situations, and that the riders themselves do most of the adaptation. Without radios they have to wait longer to find out who is in the break, what the gap is, whether there's a split behind them etc. Any extra excitement and unpredictability is likely to be the result of decisions based on lack of information, not because they have to make tactical decisions themselves. E.g. someone dangerous slips into the break unnoticed, or the gap goes up faster than they thought. The end result of that, as Iain pointed out, is that it's likely the big teams would close down races and ride defensively - better to err on the side of caution than risk making a mistake. You might also see teams trying to bring even more riders to the front (as they do with GC riders in the sprint stages of the GTs), with potentially devastating consequences.

    Meanwhile, there are situations - such as a split forming behind - where timely info about what's happening can give a platform for an unexpected attack that enlivens the race.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • DeadCalmDeadCalm Posts: 3,760
    Is anyone actually arguing that the presence of radios improves the racing?

    And if, as some people seem to be claiming, they make zero actual difference to the racing what is the justification for allowing them?

    Edit: and No tA Doctor has just made a reasonable stab at providing a justification
    Team My Man 2021:

    Thymen Arensman, Remco Evenepoel, Mauri Vansevenant, Simon Carr, Pavel Sivakov, Tom Pidcock, Mark Cavendish, Benoit Cosnefroy, Romain Bardet
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,003
    DeadCalm wrote:
    Is anyone actually arguing that the presence of radios improves the racing?

    And if, as some people seem to be claiming, they make zero actual difference to the racing what is the justification for allowing them?

    Edit: and No tA Doctor has just made a reasonable stab at providing a justification

    An additional argument is that radios act as a leveller between smaller and larger teams. If you have to have your team car nearby to get info quickly then car position becomes even more important than it is now. And the big teams tend to have their cars nearer the front.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,273
    DeadCalm wrote:
    And if, as some people seem to be claiming, they make zero actual difference to the racing what is the justification for allowing them?
    It just improves communication within the team. Mechanicals get fixed quicker, and victims of mechanicals get paced back quicker, food and drink gets distributed better, warnings are given to potential hazards etc, etc.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,656
    RichN95 wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    And if, as some people seem to be claiming, they make zero actual difference to the racing what is the justification for allowing them?
    It just improves communication within the team. Mechanicals get fixed quicker, and victims of mechanicals get paced back quicker, food and drink gets distributed better, warnings are given to potential hazards etc, etc.

    They're fair arguments. How about a sort of 'half-way' arrangment? Riders can talk to each other, and talk to the team car, but the team car and DS can't talk to the riders?

    (don't ask me how this could be actually implemented :D )
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • DeadCalmDeadCalm Posts: 3,760
    The romantic in me would like to see the end of race radios (the sadist in me wants to see them ride on steel frames and fixed gears) but I can't see it doing all that much to make racing more exciting.

    Essentially, it's all about information. I'm fairly sure teams start a race with a strategy and adapt tactics on the road to deal with new situations, and that the riders themselves do most of the adaptation. Without radios they have to wait longer to find out who is in the break, what the gap is, whether there's a split behind them etc. Any extra excitement and unpredictability is likely to be the result of decisions based on lack of information, not because they have to make tactical decisions themselves. E.g. someone dangerous slips into the break unnoticed, or the gap goes up faster than they thought.
    The fact that the excitement comes from lack of information is a bad thing why?
    The end result of that, as Iain pointed out, is that it's likely the big teams would close down races and ride defensively - better to err on the side of caution than risk making a mistake.
    I hear this argument a lot and it is made to sound as though it is simply a matter of turning a dial to ride defensively. Keeping a break on a shorter leash requires more effort. Teams would be faced with the dilemma of expending that effort at the risk of being unable to compete with other teams in the finale.
    You might also see teams trying to bring even more riders to the front (as they do with GC riders in the sprint stages of the GTs), with potentially devastating consequences.
    I really don't see this being a consequence. All the contenders are riding near the front these days in any event.
    Meanwhile, there are situations - such as a split forming behind - where timely info about what's happening can give a platform for an unexpected attack that enlivens the race.
    This is a good point and the only circumstance I can think of where it might lead to more exciting racing.
    Team My Man 2021:

    Thymen Arensman, Remco Evenepoel, Mauri Vansevenant, Simon Carr, Pavel Sivakov, Tom Pidcock, Mark Cavendish, Benoit Cosnefroy, Romain Bardet
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,273
    DeadCalm wrote:
    The fact that the excitement comes from lack of information is a bad thing why?
    Personally I don't want to see a rider lose a race becuase he had to wait too long for a spare wheel when it could have been done quickly by radio.
    DeadCalm wrote:
    I hear this argument a lot and it is made to sound as though it is simply a matter of turning a dial to ride defensively. Keeping a break on a shorter leash requires more effort. Teams would be faced with the dilemma of expending that effort at the risk of being unable to compete with other teams in the finale.
    I'm not sure they would need to make more effort. Breakaways vary their efforts according to the time gap just as the chasers do. A shorter leash would perhaps burn out the breakaway quicker or discourage themn sooner. The peloton will just do its hard work earlier in the day (rather than letting the leader's team ride tempo for the first half).
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,003
    DeadCalm wrote:
    The romantic in me would like to see the end of race radios (the sadist in me wants to see them ride on steel frames and fixed gears) but I can't see it doing all that much to make racing more exciting.

    Essentially, it's all about information. I'm fairly sure teams start a race with a strategy and adapt tactics on the road to deal with new situations, and that the riders themselves do most of the adaptation. Without radios they have to wait longer to find out who is in the break, what the gap is, whether there's a split behind them etc. Any extra excitement and unpredictability is likely to be the result of decisions based on lack of information, not because they have to make tactical decisions themselves. E.g. someone dangerous slips into the break unnoticed, or the gap goes up faster than they thought.
    The fact that the excitement comes from lack of information is a bad thing why?

    Well it was more a counterpoint to the idea that the problem with race radios is that the riders become automatons, that races become sterile because the all-seeing all-knowing DSs just move their pieces around.

    Personally though, I like to see riders choose their tactics from good information, not to make decisions on when and where to attack or chase based on missing or incorrect data. It might occasionally be funny to see a rider sprint from the break to celebrate a win that was actually only second place as he didn't know someone had jumped earlier, but I'd rather see him try and work out whether the lone attacker could be brought back or bridged. I like tactics and strategy, but with poor data to work with they're pretty much useless, best guesses. So yeah, it could be exciting to see some chaos and confusion that let someone slip away unnoticed, but not as good as seeing a well executed strategy. If racing is chess on bikes then I'd rather it wasn't played in a darkened room with sunglasses on.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • DeadCalmDeadCalm Posts: 3,760
    RichN95 wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    The fact that the excitement comes from lack of information is a bad thing why?
    Personally I don't want to see a rider lose a race becuase he had to wait too long for a spare wheel when it could have been done quickly by radio.
    How does radio speed up getting a rider a spare wheel from a car that is following as closely behind the race as it is allowed in any event?
    DeadCalm wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    I hear this argument a lot and it is made to sound as though it is simply a matter of turning a dial to ride defensively. Keeping a break on a shorter leash requires more effort. Teams would be faced with the dilemma of expending that effort at the risk of being unable to compete with other teams in the finale.
    I'm not sure they would need to make more effort. Breakaways vary their efforts according to the time gap just as the chasers do. A shorter leash would perhaps burn out the breakaway quicker or discourage themn sooner. The peloton will just do it's hard work earlier in the day.
    I disagree. I'm not convinced that either scenario is significantly more likely but even so, if the break burns out earlier or the break is discouraged sooner then counter-attacks nearer the end of the race will be encouraged ensuring more exciting racing.
    Team My Man 2021:

    Thymen Arensman, Remco Evenepoel, Mauri Vansevenant, Simon Carr, Pavel Sivakov, Tom Pidcock, Mark Cavendish, Benoit Cosnefroy, Romain Bardet
  • DeadCalmDeadCalm Posts: 3,760
    DeadCalm wrote:
    The romantic in me would like to see the end of race radios (the sadist in me wants to see them ride on steel frames and fixed gears) but I can't see it doing all that much to make racing more exciting.

    Essentially, it's all about information. I'm fairly sure teams start a race with a strategy and adapt tactics on the road to deal with new situations, and that the riders themselves do most of the adaptation. Without radios they have to wait longer to find out who is in the break, what the gap is, whether there's a split behind them etc. Any extra excitement and unpredictability is likely to be the result of decisions based on lack of information, not because they have to make tactical decisions themselves. E.g. someone dangerous slips into the break unnoticed, or the gap goes up faster than they thought.
    The fact that the excitement comes from lack of information is a bad thing why?

    Well it was more a counterpoint to the idea that the problem with race radios is that the riders become automatons, that races become sterile because the all-seeing all-knowing DSs just move their pieces around.

    Personally though, I like to see riders choose their tactics from good information, not to make decisions on when and where to attack or chase based on missing or incorrect data. It might occasionally be funny to see a rider sprint from the break to celebrate a win that was actually only second place as he didn't know someone had jumped earlier, but I'd rather see him try and work out whether the lone attacker could be brought back or bridged. I like tactics and strategy, but with poor data to work with they're pretty much useless, best guesses. So yeah, it could be exciting to see some chaos and confusion that let someone slip away unnoticed, but not as good as seeing a well executed strategy. If racing is chess on bikes then I'd rather it wasn't played in a darkened room with sunglasses on.
    So slipping away into a break unnoticed isn't a good strategy?
    Team My Man 2021:

    Thymen Arensman, Remco Evenepoel, Mauri Vansevenant, Simon Carr, Pavel Sivakov, Tom Pidcock, Mark Cavendish, Benoit Cosnefroy, Romain Bardet
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,003
    DeadCalm wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    The romantic in me would like to see the end of race radios (the sadist in me wants to see them ride on steel frames and fixed gears) but I can't see it doing all that much to make racing more exciting.

    Essentially, it's all about information. I'm fairly sure teams start a race with a strategy and adapt tactics on the road to deal with new situations, and that the riders themselves do most of the adaptation. Without radios they have to wait longer to find out who is in the break, what the gap is, whether there's a split behind them etc. Any extra excitement and unpredictability is likely to be the result of decisions based on lack of information, not because they have to make tactical decisions themselves. E.g. someone dangerous slips into the break unnoticed, or the gap goes up faster than they thought.
    The fact that the excitement comes from lack of information is a bad thing why?

    Well it was more a counterpoint to the idea that the problem with race radios is that the riders become automatons, that races become sterile because the all-seeing all-knowing DSs just move their pieces around.

    Personally though, I like to see riders choose their tactics from good information, not to make decisions on when and where to attack or chase based on missing or incorrect data. It might occasionally be funny to see a rider sprint from the break to celebrate a win that was actually only second place as he didn't know someone had jumped earlier, but I'd rather see him try and work out whether the lone attacker could be brought back or bridged. I like tactics and strategy, but with poor data to work with they're pretty much useless, best guesses. So yeah, it could be exciting to see some chaos and confusion that let someone slip away unnoticed, but not as good as seeing a well executed strategy. If racing is chess on bikes then I'd rather it wasn't played in a darkened room with sunglasses on.
    So slipping away into a break unnoticed isn't a good strategy?

    Well technically more of a tactic than a strategy, and yes, it's a good one. Tactics should involve exploiting any and every opportunity to gain an advantage (with a few provisios for sporting decency and fair play). But staying away only because nobody knew you'd gone is farcical.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,273
    edited December 2014
    DeadCalm wrote:
    How does radio speed up getting a rider a spare wheel from a car that is following as closely behind the race as it is allowed in any event?
    1. The rider radios directly to team car. He doesn't have to put up his hand and wait to be spotted by race radio (he also knows that the team car knows).
    2. The rider can radio in the exact details of his problem so the mechanic is ready by the time he gets to the rider.
    3. Teammates can be called back to assist with quick and efficient pacing back
    DeadCalm wrote:
    I disagree. I'm not convinced that either scenario is significantly more likely but even so, if the break burns out earlier or the break is discouraged sooner then counter-attacks nearer the end of the race will be encouraged ensuring more exciting racing.
    Radios don't stop counter attacks. They can do that now. The peloton can pretty much pick and choose when it shuts down a break with or without radios. Even if the gap doesn't get as large, the catch will probably still be made at the same point.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • DeadCalmDeadCalm Posts: 3,760
    Well technically more of a tactic than a strategy, and yes, it's a good one. Tactics should involve exploiting any and every opportunity to gain an advantage (with a few provisios for sporting decency and fair play). But staying away only because nobody knew you'd gone is farcical.
    Yes, you are right, it would be a tactic. I guess the point I was trying to make is that doing away with race radios doesn't negate tactics or even stratagems, it just requires to adapt their tactics and stratagems to the new circumstances. And if Contador, say, were to lose time to Froome because he and his teammates were paying so little attention to him that they hadn't noticed that it was Froome in the break and not Kennaugh, then why would that be farcical?
    Team My Man 2021:

    Thymen Arensman, Remco Evenepoel, Mauri Vansevenant, Simon Carr, Pavel Sivakov, Tom Pidcock, Mark Cavendish, Benoit Cosnefroy, Romain Bardet
  • DeadCalmDeadCalm Posts: 3,760
    RichN95 wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    How does radio speed up getting a rider a spare wheel from a car that is following as closely behind the race as it is allowed in any event?
    1. The rider radios directly to team car. He doesn't have to put up his hand and wait to be spotted by race radio (he also knows that the team car knows).
    2. The rider can radio in the exact details of his problem so the mechanic is ready by the time he gets to the rider.
    3. Teammates can be called back to assist with quick and efficient pacing back
    Point 3 I concede. The others are irrelevant.
    Team My Man 2021:

    Thymen Arensman, Remco Evenepoel, Mauri Vansevenant, Simon Carr, Pavel Sivakov, Tom Pidcock, Mark Cavendish, Benoit Cosnefroy, Romain Bardet
  • DeadCalmDeadCalm Posts: 3,760
    RichN95 wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    I disagree. I'm not convinced that either scenario is significantly more likely but even so, if the break burns out earlier or the break is discouraged sooner then counter-attacks nearer the end of the race will be encouraged ensuring more exciting racing.
    Radios don't stop counter attacks. They can do that now. The peloton can pretty much pick and choose when it shuts down a break with or without radios. Even if the gap doesn't get as large, the catch will probably still be made at the same point.
    Hang on. But you said they had caught them earlier because either they'd popped or been discouraged.
    Team My Man 2021:

    Thymen Arensman, Remco Evenepoel, Mauri Vansevenant, Simon Carr, Pavel Sivakov, Tom Pidcock, Mark Cavendish, Benoit Cosnefroy, Romain Bardet
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,273
    DeadCalm wrote:
    Yes, you are right, it would be a tactic. I guess the point I was trying to make is that doing away with race radios doesn't negate tactics or even stratagems, it just requires to adapt their tactics and stratagems to the new circumstances.
    But you assume that they will adapt the tactics to a more free-flowing anarchic philosophy, when in reality strategies in almost all walks of life, when presented with unknowns, are conservative and defensive. In sport more than anywhere.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,273
    DeadCalm wrote:
    Point 3 I concede. The others are irrelevant.
    Why are they irrelevant? They make the wheel change quicker and more efficient.
    DeadCalm wrote:
    Hang on. But you said they had caught them earlier because either they'd popped or been discouraged.
    No I said that the break - as a meaningful entity - would burn out earlier. The peloton can leave them hanging out them for as long as they like (breakaway riders are usually too stubborn to sit up).
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • The_BoyThe_Boy Posts: 3,099
    I'm all for race radios being done away with. Power meters too. Can't say either particularly rile me though.
    Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy
  • The_BoyThe_Boy Posts: 3,099
    RichN95 wrote:
    Anyway, getting back to your original idea that DSs 'micromanage' riders. What do you actually think they do?

    Not sure it really counts as micromanagement, and I'm not wanting this post to seem like I'm joining a side in an ongoing debate, but...

    I remember when the Belgian cobbled races had cameras in the team cars a couple of years back, just about every shot of the DSs went along the lines of "Molenberg in 2km get thee to the front" etc. Obviously, many (most?) of the guys on the end of such an instruction know exactly how far such-and-such a pivotal point of a race is, but I recall an interview with Thomas where he talked about just how utterly lost he felt at times in the Spring one-day races due to the winding, looping nature of the courses.

    That's the sort of thing I don't like about race radios. But as I said, I'm not one to get particularly upset by them.
    Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,273
    The_Boy wrote:
    I remember when the Belgian cobbled races had cameras in the team cars a couple of years back, just about every shot of the DSs went along the lines of "Molenberg in 2km get thee to the front" etc. Obviously, many (most?) of the guys on the end of such an instruction know exactly how far such-and-such a pivotal point of a race is, but I recall an interview with Thomas where he talked about just how utterly lost he felt at times in the Spring one-day races due to the winding, looping nature of the courses.
    But saying they need to be near the front for a berg is stating the obvious and they've all got something like the picture below on their bikes (Trek being ultra pro there). It's no more a reminder of what they rider should already know.
    Most of the time the DS says something like that to convince himself he's contributing.

    1396802830440-2oa45mwirkbq-670-80.jpg
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95 wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    Point 3 I concede. The others are irrelevant.
    Why are they irrelevant? They make the wheel change quicker and more efficient.

    The UCI don't see the speed a wheel gets changed as relevant, or else they wouldn't have introduced the Lawyer Tab rule.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,273
    RichN95 wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    Point 3 I concede. The others are irrelevant.
    Why are they irrelevant? They make the wheel change quicker and more efficient.

    The UCI don't see the speed a wheel gets changed as relevant, or else they wouldn't have introduced the Lawyer Tab rule.
    The problem is that they are required by certain countries' laws (notably France), and regulations need to be uniform across the sport. Unlike FIFA, the UCI aren't actually above the law.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • The_BoyThe_Boy Posts: 3,099
    RichN95 wrote:
    The_Boy wrote:
    I remember when the Belgian cobbled races had cameras in the team cars a couple of years back, just about every shot of the DSs went along the lines of "Molenberg in 2km get thee to the front" etc. Obviously, many (most?) of the guys on the end of such an instruction know exactly how far such-and-such a pivotal point of a race is, but I recall an interview with Thomas where he talked about just how utterly lost he felt at times in the Spring one-day races due to the winding, looping nature of the courses.
    But saying they need to be near the front for a berg is stating the obvious and they've all got something like the picture below on their bikes (Trek being ultra pro there). It's no more a reminder of what they rider should already know.
    Most of the time the DS says something like that to convince himself he's contributing.

    [/img]

    Yup, but my point was that often they don't necessarily know *exactly* how far the 'berg is. Of course they know they need to be at the front, and they *should* know at what point on the course they come, but if you don't know the roads, lose focus for a few km or whatever it is probably quite easy to misjudge the best time to actually make your move. Not likely to win or lose a race for anyone, but it's the sort of small edge which comes with experience, and having a DS giving accurate countdowns to each and every focal point of a race *can* have a leveling effect to counteract that. The fact that it also annoys a whole heap of riders who know exactly where they are is just collateral.
    Team My Man 2018: David gaudu, Pierre Latour, Romain Bardet, Thibaut pinot, Alexandre Geniez, Florian Senechal, Warren Barguil, Benoit Cosnefroy
  • iainf72iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    The_Boy wrote:
    I'm all for race radios being done away with. Power meters too. Can't say either particularly rile me though.

    This is something that baffles me more than radios. For the life of me I can't understand what the fuss is about power meters.

    [Not aimed at The_Boy] There seems to be an undercurrent that technology is somehow making races "less exciting". But the reality is that more exposure and increased professionalism is raising the stakes so everything is becoming more conservative. I think it was Andy Hampsten who I heard interviewed a few years ago who said when he started racing in Europe, races tended to start off 'piano' for the first few hours, then a mad flurry when TV started up. As more TV came along, the earlier the madness started.

    27 / 28 years ago when I started watching cycling, Phil Ligget used to marvel at how the peloton managed to time their catches of escapees to perfection.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
Sign In or Register to comment.