Hammer series

rick_chasey

No-one's posted about this yet?

Velon's latest attempt to be down with the kids.

a 3 day team only event, filled with gimmicks to keep you entertained for a whole 2 hours...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/velon-a ... ries-race/

tailwindhome

It even has a cool name

Shadowrider

Terrible.

wombly_knees

I'm not going to pan it before watching it once. I don't think there is any argument that the non majors, so to speak, struggle for viewership and (some arguments here) can also be construed as glorified warm up races. Cricket did the sprucing up with twenty20 in the early 2000s and even golf is trying the same with super 6s.

BikeRadarAdmin

If it brings more money into the sport it can only be a good thing? As wombly knees said, T20 cricket resulted well.

takethehighroad

I am really interested in how this will be approached by the teams.

We're constantly saying "the riders make the race" but when the race is so clearly designed for them to 'show off' it will be interesting to see if they do it.

They've taken a couple of ideas I've seen mooted on here (particularly the one about having stages in the early evening as the light will still be good at that time of the year)

As they mentioned on the Cycling Podcast, no one starting a new sport nowadays would make a race like the Abu Dhabi Tour for entertainment, but it's given a free pass because that's the accepted thing to do in cycling.

So I commend them for introducing something new and I will be certainly watching it to find out how it's pulled off.

blazing_saddles

Yippee!
3 circuit races in a row.
Who needs the Classics, when you have this? :oops:

nickice

It's no surprise that any new ideas are instantly slammed on here.

iainf72

When I read the description of it, and heard the teams were involved in designing it I did wonder if they teams have a clue about the appeal of cycling at all.

The attempts at trying to make cycling a "team" sport is ridiculous. I get that it would maybe make it an easier sell for sponsors (and I'm not convinced about that) Cycling is odd in that you have 20 teams, all on the field of competition at the same time, competing, but also working together.

Complaints of cycling being boring are driven by the wall to wall TV coverage. Have 30 minutes coverage of the races and you can make it exciting. Organisers and broadcasters drive revenue by having loads of coverage, but the huge amount of it drives behaviours that aren't thrilling.

blazing_saddles

nickice wrote:

It's no surprise that any new ideas are instantly slammed on here.

A crit, a crit with a hill and a 50km team time trial with smaller staggers between teams.
What's not to like?

rick_chasey

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

We're constantly saying "the riders make the race"

I regularly dispute this.

yorkshireraw

My initial reaction, like Iainf72, was that the team aspect doesn't really work in the head to head sense.

Having heard more of the description of how the event will work - it sound's like it'll offer some entertainment and something a bit different, and obviously as the teams all have a stake in Velon, they'll make a lot of positive noises about it. The riders may well ride it and find it enjoyable, but not sure how seriously they'll view it vs. making a GT team or doing well in some 1-dayers.

Agree though that if a lot of cycling coverage was done a la ITV4's TDF highlights show - esp. for stage races, that would help as much with audience figures as this will.

Athletics recently tried a similar thing with the Usain Bolt vehicle 'Nitro Athletics' down in Australia - parts of it were amusing but a lot just looked ridiculous - the women's elimination mile saw them all knackered after the first sprint.

Richmond Racer 2

YorkshireRaw wrote:

My initial reaction, like Iainf72, was that the team aspect doesn't really work in the head to head sense.

Having heard more of the description of how the event will work - it sound's like it'll offer some entertainment and something a bit different, and obviously as the teams all have a stake in Velon, they'll make a lot of positive noises about it. The riders may well ride it and find it enjoyable, but not sure how seriously they'll view it vs. making a GT team or doing well in some 1-dayers.

Agree though that if a lot of cycling coverage was done a la ITV4's TDF highlights show - esp. for stage races, that would help as much with audience figures as this will.

Athletics recently tried a similar thing with the Usain Bolt vehicle 'Nitro Athletics' down in Australia - parts of it were amusing but a lot just looked ridiculous - the women's elimination mile saw them all knackered after the first sprint.

Lesson being, if you're going to try new formats, don't make it It's A Knockout

nickice

Blazing Saddles wrote:

nickice wrote:

It's no surprise that any new ideas are instantly slammed on here.

A crit, a crit with a hill and a 50km team time trial with smaller staggers between teams.
What's not to like?

If it brings more money and fans to the sport then that can only be positive. Most sporting ideas are not predicted to be successful when first proposed. At least they're doing something

yorkshireraw

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

My initial reaction, like Iainf72, was that the team aspect doesn't really work in the head to head sense.

Having heard more of the description of how the event will work - it sound's like it'll offer some entertainment and something a bit different, and obviously as the teams all have a stake in Velon, they'll make a lot of positive noises about it. The riders may well ride it and find it enjoyable, but not sure how seriously they'll view it vs. making a GT team or doing well in some 1-dayers.

Agree though that if a lot of cycling coverage was done a la ITV4's TDF highlights show - esp. for stage races, that would help as much with audience figures as this will.

Athletics recently tried a similar thing with the Usain Bolt vehicle 'Nitro Athletics' down in Australia - parts of it were amusing but a lot just looked ridiculous - the women's elimination mile saw them all knackered after the first sprint.

Lesson being, if you're going to try new formats, don't make it It's A Knockout

Actually - that would have been better - big inflatable hammers, trampoline high jump, steeplechase using a whole swimming pool - away you go! (actually think that was we are the champions but you get the point).

The conclusion of my Uni Athletics alumni was if they aren't including a Chunder (Beer) Mile, they aren't trying.

spam02

I think it's just a bit of fun and will be treated by all teams as such. Likely to be contested by riders who would otherwise be training that weekend. Not so sure about the team format or need for the third race, but you can't blame them for trying something different - team format crits have been successful over here.
The last race (glorified TTT) will need to be short enough and handicaps small enough that they keep it competitive.
Basically as it's tied into the Expo it forms part of a larger marketing exercise, and if that keeps sponsors and teams happy, that's a good thing.
Also gives the public some racing to watch which may in turn get more people interested and bring more money into the industry/sport. Wouldn't have minded some racing to watch at a few of the cycle shows I've been to in the past - even an extended crit.

timoid.

Instead of a traditional stage race format, the Hammer series focuses on the strength and success of teams. There are no individual winners with results based on rider placings as a team

Bleurgh. Cycling is death or glory. I want one winner please.

RichN95.

I think it's an intriguing idea and I support it. I predict that it won't work particularly well first time out but as the format is tweaked and teams work out their tactics it will have something to offer, completmenting the traditional races.

I believe that cycling will have a financial crash sometime in the next generation, As the saying goes, if we want things to stay the same something has to change

timoid.

RichN95 wrote:

I believe that cycling will have a financial crash sometime in the next generation, As the saying goes, if we want things to stay the same something has to change

Why? Cycling (aside from training / technological improvements) is essentially the same as it was 100 years ago.

This is like some 1980s Tapis or Trump innovation that will amuse for a while and then disappear.

iainf72

I was listening to the cycling podcast, and while discussing the Velon "improvements", the Velon guy talked about telemetry last year. What baffles me is that power and heart rate or whatever are fascinating for me, but for a casual punter? I can't see it making any difference to the experience or make it more interesting.

Much like improving coverage. On bike adds nothing useful.

Maybe a better idea (overall) would be 8 teams in a race, each with 20 riders.

RichN95.

Timoid. wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I believe that cycling will have a financial crash sometime in the next generation, As the saying goes, if we want things to stay the same something has to change

Why? Cycling (aside from training / technological improvements) is essentially the same as it was 100 years ago.

Overheads go up. Wages rise ahead of inflation. Areas become more reluctant to host events as the benefit reduces. TV figures go down.
And then the sponsors - a lot of the world tour teams are propped up on goodwill of individuals or nation states rather than as a credible long term marketing strategy. That won't continue - Tinkov gone, the Quick Step guys leaving. There's probably only about three teams with proper blue chip commercial sponsors - and Sky will be gone in 2020 (will they be replaced?)

rick_chasey

Have to say, I tend to feel the same as Blazing.

For me, the parcours dominates everything in cycling. It shapes the race, gives the structure in which the riders can show their stuff (or not), and is the singular biggest sell cycling has; the scenery.

If I wanted sandbox tactical racing on recognisable circuits, I would (and do) watch motor racing. It's pretty niche to be into the actual athletes.

I mean, when the organiser on the podcast was banging on about Cancellara's heart rate, cadence, and power numbers being on show, like it was the best thing ever, I was snoozing, and Cancellara's attack was one of the single most reliably exciting things to watch in cycling, period. Seriously, who gives a sh!t? I can see his cadence, and I reckon, y'know, the power numbers won't be small. Big deal.

Richmond Racer 2

Numbers do nowt for me

Possibly cos I know as much about what they mean as I do about nuclear physics

Richmond Racer 2

RichN95 wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I believe that cycling will have a financial crash sometime in the next generation, As the saying goes, if we want things to stay the same something has to change

Why? Cycling (aside from training / technological improvements) is essentially the same as it was 100 years ago.

Overheads go up. Wages rise ahead of inflation. Areas become more reluctant to host events as the benefit reduces. TV figures go down.
And then the sponsors - a lot of the world tour teams are propped up on goodwill of individuals or nation states rather than as a credible long term marketing strategy. That won't continue - Tinkov gone, the Quick Step guys leaving. There's probably only about three teams with proper blue chip commercial sponsors - and Sky will be gone in 2020 (will they be replaced?)

Gotta say I've got similar concerns. Times are changing v fast

RichN95.

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I believe that cycling will have a financial crash sometime in the next generation, As the saying goes, if we want things to stay the same something has to change

Why? Cycling (aside from training / technological improvements) is essentially the same as it was 100 years ago.

Overheads go up. Wages rise ahead of inflation. Areas become more reluctant to host events as the benefit reduces. TV figures go down.
And then the sponsors - a lot of the world tour teams are propped up on goodwill of individuals or nation states rather than as a credible long term marketing strategy. That won't continue - Tinkov gone, the Quick Step guys leaving. There's probably only about three teams with proper blue chip commercial sponsors - and Sky will be gone in 2020 (will they be replaced?)

Gotta say I've got similar concerns. Times are changing v fast

There's also the problem that all the 'good' money is going to the Amaury family - and they're not sharing. And in under 5 years (maybe this year) they'll have their own man as UCI President.

Richmond Racer 2

But Rich, remember, ASO are the GOOD GUYS

RichN95.

Delete

blazing_saddles

nickice wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

nickice wrote:

It's no surprise that any new ideas are instantly slammed on here.

A crit, a crit with a hill and a 50km team time trial with smaller staggers between teams.
What's not to like?

If it brings more money and fans to the sport then that can only be positive. Most sporting ideas are not predicted to be successful when first proposed. At least they're doing something

That is my understanding of it's goals.
1) To attract the 18-24 age range, who have a 5 minute attention span, due to withdraw symptoms kicking in, if they can't glue their eyes to their phones within that timeframe.
The bonus being that they are easily susceptible and as such, a sponsor's dream crowd.
2) Further money through these circuits to becoming closed, therefore charging folks to come and watch.

Assuming further races follow the same format, they seemed to have borrowed rules from several events, (namely, the Points Race, Madison and Pursuit) and cobbled together something that to me, looks suspiciously like an outdoor, track event.

US tv is similarly targets the advert friendly, 18-30 (actually it claims 49) age range and we all know how intellectually stimulating and challenging that product is.....

iainf72

Maybe pro cycling needs to right size. If it's not attracting sponsors, maybe it's too expensive for what it is.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Maybe pro cycling needs to right size. If it's not attracting sponsors, maybe it's too expensive for what it is.

The problem is that it's a travelling circus with no home and no fixed cameras for TV. The overheads are always going to be large, for race organisers and teams alike.

If someone had to invent bike racing from scratch - with no knowledge of current cycling - I doubt anything would remain

Rodrego Hernandez

joshjevans wrote:

If it brings more money into the sport it can only be a good thing? As wombly knees said, T20 cricket resulted well.

Remember, Sky brought money into the sport and see where that got us!

All this talk of the sport needing to change, 'monetising' events etc, etc will ruin what is a great sport. It is accessible to all, every demographic sees it on the roadside and it is a spectacle.

What these guys want is to hide it away, charge for access and make it like F1. Which is sh1t.