Radio ban 2010

Click on the pdf icon for a letter from the UCI.
"The ban will be gradually introduced in accordance with a timetable, the first stage of which will be:

• 2010 season: ban for Men Elite and Women Elite Class 2 events of the UCI international calendar,
events of the national calendar as well as the UCI World Championships"

3 months ago TheFigurehead 15 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Not to be all Tyler Farrar is god or anything

but he had a few good points about why this is such a terrible idea. One was that DSs will talk with their riders come what may, including driving right into the peloton. Not good. He also suggested that races were less suspenseful without radios, since the pack wouldn’t let anyone go. Over time I am not sure about this one but all the safety issues favor radios, and I am OK with whatever takes out unnecessary risk.

"Harder! Better! Faster! Stronger!" Philippe Gilbert

by Chris... on Nov 27, 2009 8:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you on this

I do think that there are a few perceivable downsides to having radios. In the case that a break gets 7-10 minutes and gets caught 5k from the line, that’s just sad, and I think radios help make that possible. But I also think that each sprinter’s team that works to do this also has one or two guys who are pretty good at math and thinking on their own; in other words, I don’t at all believe the claim that this wouldn’t still happen. Taking away radios won’t solve this “problem.”

When the safety factors for riders are taken into account alongside the fact that radios can help riders largely avoid losing a chance to win a race due to a mechanical mishap a-la-Evans-at-the-Vuelta, I think they benefits far outweigh any costs. Evans didn’t avoid getting screwed by a mechanical issue, but radios can help prevent a simple flat from doing that to a strong rider in a lot of cases.

As a parting shot at the radio ban idea, would a teams feel a need to bring on people like Andreas Klier for experience as a road captain if radios meant the DS could control everything? I think not.

by dansel on Nov 27, 2009 10:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No idea the link

but Michael Barry wrote a couple of (i thought) convincing articles, arguing the exact opposite.

I am looking forward to the change

Moo

by Willj on Nov 27, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And Cosmo at Cyclocosm had a couple good

And Cosmo at Cyclocosm had a couple of good replies which made more sense to me than what Barry wrote.

by ursula on Nov 27, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's the link

It has Barry’s thoughts and some replies:

http://cyclocosm.com/2009/10/the-peloton-replugged/

Moo

by Willj on Nov 27, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he's quite outspoken on the issue

but personally i’m yet to be convinced either way…i think the proof may come in the smaller races, where there isn’t so much at stake, and the whole world isn’t watching…the tour is no place to trial such a big change…

"well...you live in england so: you love the rain. loves the queen. hates cycling. based on mr bean had a tremendous amount of humour. all ride in a mini cooper. all getting drunk before the age of 12. getting drunk at least 3 times a day."- frinking, 7/9/09

by benrazor on Nov 27, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have to say that Cosmo's take pushes me further into the keep 'em camp...

…and I really do suspect that w/re the quality of racing (and Cosmo’s right that it’s not so clear it’s as ‘bad’ as people seem to think) radios are the convenient scapegoat du jour for crappy route planning based on who’s willing to pay to have the finish in their town rather than sporting considerations — and yeah, Cosmo’s also likely right that this mostly has to do with how GT’s and esp the TDF are evolving.

I think there is a way to keep all the things radios have done for safety and to prevent mechanicals from distorting races while also encouraging races to remain exciting and unpredictable: plan routes with racing in mind. This can be done without going to the extremes of crazy risk that apparently characterized last year’s Giro (a lot of which probably had to do with sponsorship issues anyhow). But for the moment it seems that blaming race radio is easier. Le sigh.

by Ed K on Nov 28, 2009 8:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

HUGE change

think of it, without radios bert wouldn’t have had to ignore bryneel in the tour….“wait for lance, bert, wait for lance…”

by rowyco on Nov 28, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Safety effect must be small

We have the stats from before rados were used and after. if there was a big difference either way you know that side would be trotting out the figures.

by Markk on Nov 27, 2009 3:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cut 'em off.

They’ve only been widely used since, roughly, the LA years. Not like theyre being asked to ride without helmets, for gosh sake.

"…I saw bloody Cavendish coming, really fast…"
HH

by ELVISGOAT on Nov 27, 2009 5:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The World Championships could be interesting

No radios and riders who only ride on the same team once a year.

Gives people a good excuse for why you were working for one of your trade team mates, I guess

by William H on Nov 28, 2009 12:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm still trying to figure out what

..events of the national calendar..

implies. Are they talking about USAC/NRC events in the US? Or just the 11 ( by my count)l UCI events held in the states? Does The USAC have to follow UCI guidelines or do they get to set their own standards in this regard?

Will H has a good point imagine trying to coordinate a team other than say Italy for worlds.

by Fred Marx on Nov 29, 2009 10:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Any UCI races in the US that are 1.2 or 2.2 are affected...so like Tour of the Battenkill, Tour of Utah, Univest GP etc.

Most NRC races are not UCI races and that is why they have a bunch of amatuers in them. NRC races don’t really need radios anyways because most races are Crits or circuit races. I really don’t think it will do that much because most of the races are sprint oriented and teams like Colavita know when to chase and bring it back.

Only races not affected are .HC races like Cali, Missouri, and Philly Champs

by Vlaanderen90 on Nov 29, 2009 11:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually Tour Of Ut is not UCI rated yet.

which is one of he reasons I was curious. Lyne at Podium insight has this list of UCI North American races. Not listed, Tour Of Ut, Cascade Classic, Redlands. These are not crits and circuit races. These are short tours, with long road stages. I acknowledge your point on the (non)value of radios in most US races. I’m still not clear on how USAC is expected to interpret the phrase “events of the local calendar”. Strictly speaking it ought to only apply to the 6 UCI men’s races and 1 women’s race on Lyne’s list. Finally if radios are banned at the Junior level and U-23 level, so how does this affect a team like Garmin-Howelesko that races in a field, say Tour Of Utah, where they would be up against pro teams that isn’t under the ban.

by Fred Marx on Nov 30, 2009 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Garmin-Holowesko wouldn't be affected because they are not a pro team so they can kinda do what they want with that rule...

just depending on what happens. Most of the guys on that team are in Europe a good amount so they definitely know how to race without them but if they chose to they can use them. I don’t think that an age limit could affect you with the radios in a pro race while your U-23 even if they were banned for the younger guys.

by Vlaanderen90 on Dec 2, 2009 6:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs