Race Radios Redux: Rubbish
Tour director Christian Prudhomme has introduced a unique compromise to the debate. Earpieces are being used in this Tour as always, but during the first 50km of each day’s stage, information about attacks will not be relayed until a rider has opened up a 30-second gap. That means riders will have to keep their wits about them much more than in the past and could create some interesting twists in the race.
Color me unimpressed. I guess it means that in the early part of the stage when guys are checking to see whether a break has legs, or who's in it, such matters will remain a mystery, at first. But 30" isn't too terribly much (if, for example, Evans snuck away) (which -- I know -- would never happen), and once the break got beyond 30", radios would operate as normal. And after 50km, regardless of what's happening it's all radios, all the time.
This is scaled back quite a bit from the original proposal to ban race radios on occasion, or on certain stages. The idea was that breaks should be allowed to go free and test riders' instincts as to whether and when to react. If radios were banned on a mountain stage, with Victory in the balance, the calculations would become even more significant and intriguing. I understand that riders have come to rely on radios for safety information, such as when a dangerous turn or narrow road is approaching. Surely there's a way to devise sensible radio silence, but just as surely that's now been punted to the offseason.
0 recs |
11
comments
Read Related
Comments
huh.
the race radio thing, i just don’t really get all the fuss about this. i’m coo’ with the guys (and girls) having radios, no big.
by gavia on Jul 8, 2008 6:23 PM EDT 0 recs
Meh
Worthless in my opinion.
I’d love to see some sort of regulation that limits the content of the transmissions. There are good reasons to have a radio. You can check on your riders health, communicate about equipment issues, even convey some sort of team tactics. But, I don’t like the idea of relaying break information, or info about other teams.
Now, how you enforce it is another issue.
by johnw on Jul 8, 2008 6:25 PM EDT 0 recs
+1
Please, 30 seconds in the first 50K? I could understand if it was near the top of a HC climb with a group of six, but other than that it’s a pretty weak concession.
by spokejunky on
Jul 8, 2008 10:14 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I disagree gavia, johnw
Come on guys, you don’t get what all the fuss is about? Really? John illustrates exactly why they should be banned. If DS’s were unable to “check on your riders health, communicate about equipment issues, even convey some sort of team tactics,” wouldn’t that make for more tense, exciting racing? If the riders have to race for themselves, can’t that only help the dynamics of a given race. ban em’ forever says I!!!
by EuroPeloton on Jul 8, 2008 6:56 PM EDT 0 recs
I agree
I think they should be banned. “Worthless” is in regard to the new rule. It doesn’t do anything. I could compromise on retaining the radios for limited use. I think rider safety is a good compromise (riders’ health, etc)
by johnw on
Jul 8, 2008 7:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
If that's the case
all racers have a radio with which they can access the tour doctor. If needed the med car can ring up the DS in the team car. if its a biomechanical health issues (ie seat too low) then they have to go back to the team car anyways. Done.
by Hons on
Jul 8, 2008 9:26 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I wonder if all the negative things we attribute to radios ie the boring/predictable action of the peloton
is not more a symptom of doping. Teams were able to go to the front of the field, control and reel back all attacks from beginning to end of a stage, have multiple guys still left at the end of mountain stages. Would not having radios changed anything?
by lyne on Jul 8, 2008 8:49 PM EDT 0 recs
i wasn't thinking doping, per se
though, now that you way it, yes, i think you’re right about the ability of teams to control the races being related to the widespread (and easy – epo is cheaper and easier than fuentes) doping of the ‘90s.
but i do think the influence of radios on racing is overstated. i don’t think it’s as decisive as it’s being made out to be.
hard enough to ride a bike race. why should they have to do it deaf, dumb and blind? if anything it would make the racing more dangerous, because you’d have 200 guys trying to ride at the front, and trying to stay close to their team leaders. messy.
by gavia on
Jul 8, 2008 10:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The whole idea seem too complicated to manage
Exactly how could a race official control something like this?
It just sounds ridiculous and far too pointless anyway.
by Ryan_Liles on Jul 8, 2008 11:16 PM EDT 0 recs
no radios, at least try it
Good grief, there’s 9 riders on a team. Make em chuck the radios and keep track of what’s going down on the fly. I think it could have a huge influence to go without. It’s not like you take the ability to go back to the car. Technology is good. I think riding time-trials on road bikes seems backwards. Might as well make them have 32 spokes and about 5 gears. As is the weight limit. But the radios are too much.
by phantom_51 on Jul 9, 2008 10:39 AM EDT 0 recs














