So do you believe me now?
First off, tomorrow on July 8th is Race #2 of the NashvilleCyclist.com Criterium Race Series. Be There or Get Slower! See www.NashvilleCyclist.com for a flyer and series details.
Cyclingfans.com
For those of you at work, or worse like me without cable, you can check out this link with various online options for LIVE video/audio of the Tour de France. The options vary each day, but you do get to hear Phil and Paul on most of them. I had to listen to a Russian feed for awhile today before an English version came online, but now I'm listening to Italian. I really should touch up on my foreign languages.
Team leadership still an issue at Astana
I am assuming these reports are real regarding the lack of understanding and communications between Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel about Astana's protected rider at the Tour. We are still very early in the Tour with a lot to play out before the real drama begins. After a few mountain stages the clouds will clear as the cream will rise to the top.
Either there is real confusion or lack of emphasis on one rider or the Astana team is sly like a fox. Part of me believes they are just as good tacticians off the bike as they are on the bike. I'm certainly a big believer that you never state your game plan to your rivals if it's not necessary, and with all the bullets Astana has why would you? However, is Alberto Contador on board and trusting that he's the #1 rider? My gut tells me he's not in a comfortable position, especially after reading his quote in the link below.
Was Armstrong just riding smart, or.....
I'm with Armstrong on this one, it doesn't take rocket scientist smarts to be attentive towards the front. Every bike racer has been through this exact scenario with or without harsh cross-winds. Once the split in the field happened it's definitely the responsibility of unrepresented teams to chase, primarily sprinter teams for this stage if they wanted a shot at beating Mark Cavendish. Most GC hopefuls were caught behind as well, but evidently didn't feel that losing nearly a minute to Armstrong is a huge loss. Let's see if they feel that way after the TTT. Hats off to Columbia/HTC for having their entire team of nine guys in the split. I loved George Hincapie's post-race comments criticizing other teams for not taking a leadership role at the front prior to the split. Astana may have the overall strongest nine riders in the race, but this day's outcome shows some are missing a little wit about them.
Teams go in inverse order of team ranking
Today's TTT has different rules regarding the finishing time than in the past few years. I read in Velonews' live rolling text coverage yesterday that actual finishing times of the team will be used this year and not some mathematical equation to limit losses. In other words, a team's final time will be what they actually earn. I never liked the previous confusing rule, so this is a welcome relief back to sanity in my book.
Toronto bike maker has a lot riding on the big race
Wow, almost a grass roots approach to creating a high profile professional cycling team. I agree, you give the riders the opportunity to help shape the team culture and you'll be happy and proud to be a part of it. It certainly helps if you produce a bike that's respected and in high demand!
Team directors oppose the Tour's two-day radio ban
Stage 10 and Stage 13 are scheduled to be radio free days in the Tour's peloton. Stage 10 is Bastille Day and ideal for the sprinters while Stage 13 is a mountainous challenge with five categorized climbs. It's debatable whether or not this is a good idea or will actually add a positive dynamic to the race outcome. As long as riders are getting time checks from the motorcycles then they'll at least know time gaps on a regular basis, which in my view is a more critical piece of information that affects the outcome.
So why are team directors and many racers raising questions to the logic behind this addition to the Tour this year? Based upon what I've read that angle stems from a director informing riders about traffic obstacles and/or general course descriptions that are just ahead. I believe it to be a valid point and now part of the professional culture that's a generally accepted practice. Moreover, the safety aspect trumps the need to believe you're adding a "tactics" feature by banning radios for a couple of days. Whether you have radios or not there are tactics, and no matter what there will be vicious attacking at the start of every stage before a breakaway is formed; with or without radios. Again, with time checks from the moto the peloton will respond accordingly.
I'll give an example at the local level where a radio would have been beneficial. This past week the Masters Nationals road race in Louisville was on a very technical and twisty 5 mile loop in Cherokee Park. Imagine Percy Warner Park with better pavement and slightly wider roads, and of course very limited visibility ahead. I pre-rode the course three times the day before and twice the day of my race, but I talked to a LOT of guys who didn't at all. I thought they were crazy for not doing so, but they wrongly listened to officials at start/finish who told them they couldn't ride the course. They could on the areas not around start/finish without any trouble, and since there was only one race on the course at a time it meant you could easily get out of the way of the race caravan coming through.
There were several sharp turns and chicanes that helped knowing in advance. In our pack of 100 riders I had the comfort of knowing the course, which greatly reduced my nervousness in that pack at 30+ mph. Other guys weren't so comfortable and had great difficulty handling their bikes throughout the course. Sure, after a couple of laps you should have the course seared into your mind, but imagine having someone talking in your ear describing what you're about to encounter? Even after a few laps the intensity of the event can prevent you from thinking clearly and losing focus, so having a reminder chirping in your ear could easily help prevent an unnecessary accident. Yes, I did see one horrific crash involving two guys on one of the most dangerous curves.
Now imagine being in a race like the Tour de France with 180+ riders, 25-40mph, narrow roads, and having very little knowledge of what's ahead. Not having radios may not fall into the "unsafe" category, but having them would ensure the likelihood of a safer ride. Especially in those last 10k of a sprint finish. What's more, riders and commentators both have mentioned how the traffic designs in Europe have changed dramatically to include much more traffic islands and obstacles to slow down motor vehicle traffic. You can read the race bible all you want to get familiar, but in the heat of the moment your ability to recall important info you read isn't so good. Moreover, not every detail of the course is included in the race bible.
Tour organizers will feel some kind of dumb if any rider is seriously injured due to the lack of communication about the course layout. I for one don't believe riders need the radios for strategy, but for safety I do believe they are useful tools. I would not expect there to be any increased accidents because these guys are professionals, the best bike handlers in the world, but at the same time I'm sure they'll be a little bit more cautious. I'll tell you this, on that mountain stage it could get really interesting because riders won't get updates on where their teammates are on the mountain slopes, ie think Astana!
Lastly, how many times have you been to a race where afterwards you say, "Unbelievable, it sure would have been nice and smart to have that turn or obstacle pointed out more clearly! It's a wonder one of us wasn't killed. Man, that promoter is an idiot!" Yeah, I know.
Cyclingfans.com
For those of you at work, or worse like me without cable, you can check out this link with various online options for LIVE video/audio of the Tour de France. The options vary each day, but you do get to hear Phil and Paul on most of them. I had to listen to a Russian feed for awhile today before an English version came online, but now I'm listening to Italian. I really should touch up on my foreign languages.
Team leadership still an issue at Astana
I am assuming these reports are real regarding the lack of understanding and communications between Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel about Astana's protected rider at the Tour. We are still very early in the Tour with a lot to play out before the real drama begins. After a few mountain stages the clouds will clear as the cream will rise to the top.
Either there is real confusion or lack of emphasis on one rider or the Astana team is sly like a fox. Part of me believes they are just as good tacticians off the bike as they are on the bike. I'm certainly a big believer that you never state your game plan to your rivals if it's not necessary, and with all the bullets Astana has why would you? However, is Alberto Contador on board and trusting that he's the #1 rider? My gut tells me he's not in a comfortable position, especially after reading his quote in the link below.
Was Armstrong just riding smart, or.....
I'm with Armstrong on this one, it doesn't take rocket scientist smarts to be attentive towards the front. Every bike racer has been through this exact scenario with or without harsh cross-winds. Once the split in the field happened it's definitely the responsibility of unrepresented teams to chase, primarily sprinter teams for this stage if they wanted a shot at beating Mark Cavendish. Most GC hopefuls were caught behind as well, but evidently didn't feel that losing nearly a minute to Armstrong is a huge loss. Let's see if they feel that way after the TTT. Hats off to Columbia/HTC for having their entire team of nine guys in the split. I loved George Hincapie's post-race comments criticizing other teams for not taking a leadership role at the front prior to the split. Astana may have the overall strongest nine riders in the race, but this day's outcome shows some are missing a little wit about them.
Teams go in inverse order of team ranking
Today's TTT has different rules regarding the finishing time than in the past few years. I read in Velonews' live rolling text coverage yesterday that actual finishing times of the team will be used this year and not some mathematical equation to limit losses. In other words, a team's final time will be what they actually earn. I never liked the previous confusing rule, so this is a welcome relief back to sanity in my book.
Toronto bike maker has a lot riding on the big race
Wow, almost a grass roots approach to creating a high profile professional cycling team. I agree, you give the riders the opportunity to help shape the team culture and you'll be happy and proud to be a part of it. It certainly helps if you produce a bike that's respected and in high demand!
Team directors oppose the Tour's two-day radio ban
Stage 10 and Stage 13 are scheduled to be radio free days in the Tour's peloton. Stage 10 is Bastille Day and ideal for the sprinters while Stage 13 is a mountainous challenge with five categorized climbs. It's debatable whether or not this is a good idea or will actually add a positive dynamic to the race outcome. As long as riders are getting time checks from the motorcycles then they'll at least know time gaps on a regular basis, which in my view is a more critical piece of information that affects the outcome.
So why are team directors and many racers raising questions to the logic behind this addition to the Tour this year? Based upon what I've read that angle stems from a director informing riders about traffic obstacles and/or general course descriptions that are just ahead. I believe it to be a valid point and now part of the professional culture that's a generally accepted practice. Moreover, the safety aspect trumps the need to believe you're adding a "tactics" feature by banning radios for a couple of days. Whether you have radios or not there are tactics, and no matter what there will be vicious attacking at the start of every stage before a breakaway is formed; with or without radios. Again, with time checks from the moto the peloton will respond accordingly.
I'll give an example at the local level where a radio would have been beneficial. This past week the Masters Nationals road race in Louisville was on a very technical and twisty 5 mile loop in Cherokee Park. Imagine Percy Warner Park with better pavement and slightly wider roads, and of course very limited visibility ahead. I pre-rode the course three times the day before and twice the day of my race, but I talked to a LOT of guys who didn't at all. I thought they were crazy for not doing so, but they wrongly listened to officials at start/finish who told them they couldn't ride the course. They could on the areas not around start/finish without any trouble, and since there was only one race on the course at a time it meant you could easily get out of the way of the race caravan coming through.
There were several sharp turns and chicanes that helped knowing in advance. In our pack of 100 riders I had the comfort of knowing the course, which greatly reduced my nervousness in that pack at 30+ mph. Other guys weren't so comfortable and had great difficulty handling their bikes throughout the course. Sure, after a couple of laps you should have the course seared into your mind, but imagine having someone talking in your ear describing what you're about to encounter? Even after a few laps the intensity of the event can prevent you from thinking clearly and losing focus, so having a reminder chirping in your ear could easily help prevent an unnecessary accident. Yes, I did see one horrific crash involving two guys on one of the most dangerous curves.
Now imagine being in a race like the Tour de France with 180+ riders, 25-40mph, narrow roads, and having very little knowledge of what's ahead. Not having radios may not fall into the "unsafe" category, but having them would ensure the likelihood of a safer ride. Especially in those last 10k of a sprint finish. What's more, riders and commentators both have mentioned how the traffic designs in Europe have changed dramatically to include much more traffic islands and obstacles to slow down motor vehicle traffic. You can read the race bible all you want to get familiar, but in the heat of the moment your ability to recall important info you read isn't so good. Moreover, not every detail of the course is included in the race bible.
Tour organizers will feel some kind of dumb if any rider is seriously injured due to the lack of communication about the course layout. I for one don't believe riders need the radios for strategy, but for safety I do believe they are useful tools. I would not expect there to be any increased accidents because these guys are professionals, the best bike handlers in the world, but at the same time I'm sure they'll be a little bit more cautious. I'll tell you this, on that mountain stage it could get really interesting because riders won't get updates on where their teammates are on the mountain slopes, ie think Astana!
Lastly, how many times have you been to a race where afterwards you say, "Unbelievable, it sure would have been nice and smart to have that turn or obstacle pointed out more clearly! It's a wonder one of us wasn't killed. Man, that promoter is an idiot!" Yeah, I know.
posted by NashvilleCyclist.com at 7/07/2009 08:10:00 AM
6 Comments:
still gotta disagree about the radios....comparing what we do at local level just isn't accurate....at nats, what if you had had police with flags pointing out every obstacle or serious direction change-would that have helped? that's what they have at the tour. and.....what do you think the directors are back there looking at? they're looking at the race bible-which the riders all have access to. in fact, the riders all have mini-versions that they keep in their pockets for convenience.....and....what do the riders do during the most treacherous parts of the tour roads(the descents)? they watch the motos.
in one of your earlier posts, you complimented lance for heads-up riding. i agree(even though i think he got tipped by george), and i'd like to see more racing like that. radios remove the riders' incentive to race aggressively and instinctively. take them out and you'll have a better tour.....
Well sure, having cops indicating direction changes or obstacles would help at any event. The course at nationals is an example I thought of only because most riders knew nothing of the course and it had some dangerous portions. Even at the Tour there aren't always cops or warnings at the traffic obstacles - most, but not every single one. Plus, many times when there is someone warning riders the split of the field happens so quickly that guys in the middle or back of the peloton are the guys lacking visibility and crash into the barriers. Gosh, that happens with radios! So it's reasonable to think it could happen more often without them.
Lance's comment about rocket scientist was pretty much this, "if the wind is coming at you from one direction and you see a turn in the road coming, well duh, move up cause the wind is about to change and potentially make it harder." He also reiterated that Columbia/HTC was on the front prior to the split, so they had no secrets. They instinctually saw what Lance saw, which is the same as what any smart team would see when taking a turn with significant wind change. I think you're right about instincts in that situation. Lance has them 10x greater than the rest, which paid off.
I'm not saying the Tour wouldn't be more interesting without the radios. I'm sure it would be, but even coming from the riders they appreciate knowing the lay of the land for safety reasons. Riders rely on every tool in the bag to make good decisions, so when it comes to safety how could not having radios help? Do I think someone will die or become seriously injured because they don't have radio access, no I hope not. Do I believe it's a reasonable tool to help assure safety from time to time, yes.
Look at it this way too - it's a form of asset and risk management. Professional cycling is big business with the success of just a few guys determining the future of multi-million dollar budgets.
I wish more people would make comments! You and I may be the only ones reading this. Then again, if I had a message board that worked.....
I've got to agree with Tim on this one. While I completely understand the benefits of banning the radios and the excitement that can bring, the risk to the riders is too great IMHO. No radios would likely mean more aggressive and less predictable racing, which is undoubtedly more pure, more entertaining to watch, and requires a higher level of skill and awareness from the riders in order to achieve success. The downside, however, is that there are often obstacles on course that can be more safely avoided if they are communicated effectively and in a timely manner to the riders. Race radios accomplish this safety goal.
Danielle and I were actually discussing this issue last night, and we both agree that race radios should absolutely be allowed on all stages.
Any race promoter must find an acceptable balance between rider contentment (safety, course sanity, payouts, etc) and spectator excitement (course insanity, unpredictability, etc). A look at some of the past Giro D'Italia's can show a clear example of when a promoter unfairly balances the race towards the spectators at the expense of the riders. There was that ridiculous TT that went up a steep dirt road, snowy stages, and of course the crit-like circuit that the riders protested.
Balance is key, and I think race radios are a necessary evil.
Just my few cents.
Blame lies squarely with Contador. He failed to see the stage develop and found himself in a bad situation. Should Lance have radioed to his teammates that something was cookin'? Probably. But if Contador is the leader, then he needs to act like a leader and that means taking control of his team and the race. I don't think putting Lance within striking distance of yellow and having Contador lay low going into Spain is part of their strategy. It almost certainly is not Contador's.
Signed,
VO2 Lax
again-disagree. there were certainly some dangerous elements to this year's giro. (however, i don't see what's dangerous about an uphill tt, and....it snows in italy in may. the race goes through the mountains. it's not a crit series). but...see my earlier point-it's not as if the ds in the car has access to some special channel on his tv that shows road furniture. he has the race bible, which is what the riders have.
and...it's pretty easy to look back, right? we didn't have radios until motorola introduced them in 1993 or so. it's not as if you had these huge pileups every day back then.
in fact, i would argue that the vast majority of the big crashes in the bunch come on flat roads when guys just are not paying attention. i know that when i'm in a huge bunch, i'm paying a LOT of attention to what's coming up. if i have someone in my ear upon whom i'm relying to tell me when there is danger, then i'm likely just not going to be paying as much attention. and if there is something that that person can't see......i'm in trouble.
either way i guess we'll know on stage ten, right? if there are huge crashes all over the place then we'll know i'm wrong. certainly wouldn't be the first time....
FYI, it looks like the UCI has decided to allow race radios for stage 13. Guess they didn't like the slow boring racing of stage 10 without the radios...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/teams-will-have-radios-on-tours-13th-stage
Post a Comment
<< Home