# "The technical committee of the UCI has recommended that radios be banned from racing



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

*"The technical committee of the UCI has recommended that radios be banned from racing*

from PEZcyclingnews.com:
"The Radio's Demise?
The technical committee of the UCI has recommended that radios be banned from racing starting in 2010. The association of race organizers also agrees with the idea and according to WielerUpdate, it's only a matter of time before radios are a thing of the past."


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Wow, the UCI doing something right for a change.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

The birth of a new form of cheating.


----------



## Ninja #2 (Aug 26, 2006)

that would make racing alot more interesting.


----------



## tkavan01 (Jun 24, 2004)

JSR said:


> The birth of a new form of cheating.


now they'll be searching for implanted receivers, and def riders will need special paper work to go through controls...


----------



## brentster (Jul 12, 2007)

I just read Johan Bruyneel's autobiography (it was so so) and he mentioned that the radios were brought into racing for safety reasons. So that the riders could be warned of a dangerous curve or wreck up ahead.


----------



## bdaghisallo1 (Sep 25, 2007)

I don't recall safety being one of the original reasons for radios. It all started with the Motorola team taking advantage of their cellular technology and mounting cell phones on their team bikes with a microphone mounting on the stem. It went from there. LeMond even had special helmets with a microphone wand built into his Giro helmets.

Teams quickly saw the tactical advantage and adopted them. Cell phones went as the teams found better technologies with radio signals.

Safety is a latter day justification for radios.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

I'm not sure it will help much. Obviously radios provide directors with more input, but most sports allow coaches to coach even during a game. And as I understand it before radios they used to listen to broadcast radio in the team car and send messages via domestiques, or even position support people with transistor radios on the course to communicate with riders via chalkboards (old school motor racing style) or good old lung power- and they didn't even need the transistor radio, just a stopwatch. "You're 30 seconds back!" It's romantic to remember occasions when a chase group only ran down part of a break away and the 'forgotten leader' won unopposed, but that was rare even in prehistoric days.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

Why not go back to steel bikes too? Obviously carbon has given the riders too much of an advantage. Why were at it, let's make them carry their own spare tubes and patch kits. What's wrong with advancing the technical parts of the sport. The individual rider still has to put power to the pedals no matter what's going on in his ear.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

coop said:


> Why not go back to steel bikes too? Obviously carbon has given the riders too much of an advantage. Why were at it, let's make them carry their own spare tubes and patch kits. What's wrong with advancing the technical parts of the sport. The individual rider still has to put power to the pedals no matter what's going on in his ear.


Radio's are not part of the technical part of the sport, they are tactical. While teams have a choice of frames, wheels, tires, etc. the tactics should be up to the riders.....not some fat dude watching the race on TV in a car behind them.

Racing will be far more interesting without radios.


----------



## bikeguy0 (Sep 23, 2007)

man...this is freaking ridiculous. The UCI has their thumb up their a#$. What is the issue with advancing the sport? So they can compare performances from 2009 to 1945 to see who was the better cyclist? That is absolutely stupid. Maybe they should require all basketball players to continue to wear Converse Chuck Allstars.....wood skis instead of fiberglass....run on dirt tracks instead of shredded rubber......get rid of the aero helmet, skin suit, shoe covers. While were at it lets limit the gears to 8 speeds and never allow them to use more....ever. I tell you what...they are making it HARD to be a fan of cycling. People who aren't avid cyclists see this type of decision and just think the sport is a joke. Here's to losing more fans.


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

Im more of fan now. Dont limit equipment too much, but for crissake let the riders do the riding and decision making. Having a play by play guy in their ears just removes too much risk taking and gambling, kind of sterilizes it too much. The nice thing is it seems that the fans are mostly in the "ban the radios" camp, and maybe UCI is trying to respond to the fans. Thats always good, no?


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

I think that from a tactical (not nec. safety) standpoint that most pros will be for this. I don't think that having someone telling you what to do is really advancing the sport. If anything, it's making it more predictable and boring. 

I'm all for it (and I race)


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

No radios for 1 day races.
Radios for stage races.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I am 100% in favor of radios, for time trials only. There is nothing more irritating that listening to a team director in a chase car yelling through a PA to his rider ahead. VENGA VENGA VENGA! Jeeze, SHUT THE HELL UP! With radios, that is no longer an issue.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

bikeguy0 said:


> man...this is freaking ridiculous. The UCI has their thumb up their a#$. What is the issue with advancing the sport? So they can compare performances from 2009 to 1945 to see who was the better cyclist? That is absolutely stupid. Maybe they should require all basketball players to continue to wear Converse Chuck Allstars.....wood skis instead of fiberglass....run on dirt tracks instead of shredded rubber......get rid of the aero helmet, skin suit, shoe covers. While were at it lets limit the gears to 8 speeds and never allow them to use more....ever. I tell you what...they are making it HARD to be a fan of cycling. People who aren't avid cyclists see this type of decision and just think the sport is a joke. Here's to losing more fans.



this aparently really chaps your hide but you don't make any solid argument as to why the radio is a good thing. How does it advance the sport? Are you aware the riders are asking for this change? 

Godforbid we ask riders to evaluate the situation on their own! Look at the worlds race this year. The spanish lost their communication and rode like idiots because they were so dependant on it. Doing away with the radios would require domestiques to drop back and have a chat with the team car to figure out who is in the break in terms of it's danger. Not a bad penality for the privilage of the ease of pace. Or they monitor the race's front and make darn sure someone of their team is up there. You'll see shorter leashes on breaks and more attacks. This is great for spectators. 

Another big benifit is you will actualy see team leaders acting like it. Riders will have to communicate with each other activally instead of sleeping until an order is barked in their ear. 

but really, you feel this is ridiculous? You feel this hinders the advancment of the sport? Make the argument. Just shouting that it is stupid is pretty lame. I'm curious to hear it. Convince me. But as a racer and promoter I like seeing the race develop on the pavement not on a radio.


----------



## Slim Again Soon (Oct 25, 2005)

*Why the change?*

Did the UCI say why they would recommend doing away with radios?


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

bikeguy0 said:


> man...this is freaking ridiculous. The UCI has their thumb up their a#$. What is the issue with advancing the sport? So they can compare performances from 2009 to 1945 to see who was the better cyclist? That is absolutely stupid. Maybe they should require all basketball players to continue to wear Converse Chuck Allstars.....wood skis instead of fiberglass....run on dirt tracks instead of shredded rubber......get rid of the aero helmet, skin suit, shoe covers. While were at it lets limit the gears to 8 speeds and never allow them to use more....ever. I tell you what...they are making it HARD to be a fan of cycling. People who aren't avid cyclists see this type of decision and just think the sport is a joke. Here's to losing more fans.



No, people who aren't avid cyclists see this type of decision and think so what?

Rules dictate equipment and technique in every sport. What's the problem? Would you be happier if it was "anything goes" and time trials were all raced in fully faired recumbents?

If you have a specific problem with doing away with radios, let's hear it. Otherwise, what are you complaining about?


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> Radio's are not part of the technical part of the sport, they are tactical. While teams have a choice of frames, wheels, tires, etc. the tactics should be up to the riders.....not some fat dude watching the race on TV in a car behind them.
> 
> Racing will be far more interesting without radios.



Radios aren't part of the technical part? You'll have to explain that one, I'd have to say they are both technical and tactical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't tactics discussed prior to a race in team meetings. I'm pretty sure the fat dude sits in on those too. 

Advancement in sport is always hard for traditionalist, but the radio isn't the only technical/tactical advancement going on right now. What about heart rate monitors and power measuring computers. Riders are using those are they not?

If the riders no longer want radios as some other poster has mentioned, then do away with them. They are the ones who ultimately have to put forth effort. If the UCI is just doing it to make a point about something, then it's my belief that they are ignoring advances in sport.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

coop said:


> If the riders no longer want radios as some other poster has mentioned, then do away with them. They are the ones who ultimately have to put forth effort. If the UCI is just doing it to make a point about something, then it's my belief that they are ignoring advances in sport.


If there's any truth to bdaghisallo1's history of radio use above, I would say the UCI is addressing this particular "advance" in the sport, and has decided to ban it.

What would you rather? No rules? Again, without UCI rules recumbents would take most bike races. Is that where you see the sport going?

Take another example: swimming. Forget about equipment, without very specific rules about technique there would be only one stroke, the fastest stroke: the crawl. To me that doesn't sound like an "advance" for the sport.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

coop said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't tactics discussed prior to a race in team meetings. I'm pretty sure the fat dude sits in on those too.
> 
> What about heart rate monitors and power measuring computers. Riders are using those are they not?


Of course tacticts are discussed before the race. But you need to be able to react to what is happening not just what you think will happen. You make a plan and then during the race you adapt it to fit the situation. Tossing the radio forces the riders to make these adaptations.

You might be suprised how little racers use heart rate and power readings durring a race. In a TT you will use them very much. But a mass start race you won't. You must react to what others are doing not just what you are capable of. Many will put tape over their computer so they don't hold back when they shouldn't. Just about the only important info in the race is how much distance you've got left. Now if you plan on doing a solo attack your power meter and HR is very usefull. Those numbers are for racing yourself. Most races you're racing others. The data is very usefull for adapting your training but if you aren't willing to go above your max when the race calls for it you will just find yourself riding off the back.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

JohnStonebarger said:


> without UCI rules recumbents would take most bike races.


I really don't think a recumbant can do much for a sprint.
they also don't turn all that hot. 

now they can TT well, i'll give you that. 

But for most of the duration of a race you're sitting in someone's draft. I've also never seen a bent go up a hill very fast.

i don't think they could react to an accleration very well either. Is the reduced aero profile of a bent more benificial then drafting? Doubt it...


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

I'm in favour of them.
It would suck to watch a GC favorite lose the Tour on stage 3 due to an ill timed flat 10km before the finish as Quick Step is setting up a sprint at 60km/hr. A guy could lose 3-4 minutes if his entire team did not know to drop back. Without radios, how would they know?
You also need to know splits in an ITT.
I could get behind no radios in one day races, but stage races need radios. Without radios it's not the strongest who wins, it's the luckiest.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

fleck said:


> Is the reduced aero profile of a bent more benificial then drafting? Doubt it...


Interesting question, but not quite the point (though I do think a faired 'bent is faster than a drafting "safety bike," plus one 'bent could always draft another, right?). Recumbents were only banned from bike racing after some unknown came along and broke all the speed records. Today no one seems to mind that at all. It was better for the sport. Some rules are.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

mtbbmet said:


> Without radios it's not the strongest who wins, it's the luckiest.


Think how lucky Merckx must have been! And Coppi! And Hinault! And...


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

this is a MAJOR decision, to ban radio use. They implemented radio use and it's been standard over a dozen years. I think that they should consider a plan to slowly ease Radio use out of certain parts of the sport. But eliminating it straight away would be too drastic. Perhaps they allow two riders per team. So they have the team leader for the day (or gc) and a "captain" for the day, that the DS can communicate with. This keeps the tactical element of communications involved, but adds an important "choice" of who will use it during the day. What if the radio rider has a crappy day, and can't hang in the group, thus can't communicate. I think it could add more of a dynamic to strategic planning and execution whilst keeping relatively common and simple technology of radios. 
I think killing radios altogether is pretty drastic and the "adjustment" period would be very controversial. Just what the UCI needs, is more controversy. Just a suggestion.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

JohnStonebarger said:


> Think how lucky Merckx must have been! And Coppi! And Hinault! And...


.......And Eugene Christophe. And dozens of other strong riders who lost a major races due to an ill timed mechanical or crash.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

JohnStonebarger said:


> Think how lucky Merckx must have been! And Coppi! And Hinault! And...


absolute luck.  

god forbid domestique racers actually pay attention to the racers they are riding in support of


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

mtbbmet said:


> .......And Eugene Christophe. And dozens of other strong riders who lost a major races due to an ill timed mechanical or crash.


And that's RACING!! I'm in favor of most anything that opens a race up and allows the non-top riders a chance. That's what seperates a race from a group ride. - TF


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

a few points need a bit of clarification:
- radio's weren't "introduced" by the UCI. the teams innovated on their own. the UCI has simply chosen to tolerate them, as with other innovations.
- riders still crash and have mechanicals and blow up and otherwise pull stupid moves today, even with radios. it's pointless to say that would or wouldn't happen with or without radios.
- the only time I ever recall anyone asking the ProTour riders in a poll, I seem to recall they voted overwhelmingly in favor of radios. somebody can probably find it, I think it was early 07.
- whether racing is more exciting, or not, is in the eye of the beholder. But as someone who's watched the sport both with and without, I think without is better. You new guys - go read some history. Read about the way Merckx and Hinault and Moser and Saronni and those guys used to race and attack. It was different, and it was, IMO, better.


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

Srsly. 

You come up with a strategy beforehand, but part of bike racing is reacting to what happens during the race- whether it's part of your strategy or not. It means that the outcomes of some races will be dictated by riders making smart choices on their own or possibly taking a risk rather than following orders in their ears. It's going to mean that now team managers need to choose riders that are not only strong, but that can also think on their saddle and react to whatever happens on the road.


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

It would be really interesting to ban these two things:
* Power meters. Eddy and the boys did it without SRMs; let's see today's riders do it.
* GPS receivers. Instead of getting digital previews of the climbs, stick a piece of masking tape to your stem and write notes instead.


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

Getting rid of radios sounds attractive. Give the domestiques something else to do. But isn't the likely result in the GTs that the strongest teams will have guys to burn and the weaker ones will be even more disadvantaged. Anything that broadens the ability of all the teams to compete must be good for the fans and radios may once have been affordable by only the elite but now I think they are a cheap leveller.
I'd love to see those recumbents coming up Ventoux in next years TDF.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Who exactly makes up the UCI's technical committee?

If no active pros are on this and it's another decision from on high without rider input, it's a completely boneheaded move in keeping with the problems of the UCI.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

JohnStonebarger said:


> If there's any truth to bdaghisallo1's history of radio use above, I would say the UCI is addressing this particular "advance" in the sport, and has decided to ban it.
> 
> What would you rather? No rules? Again, without UCI rules recumbents would take most bike races. Is that where you see the sport going?
> 
> Take another example: swimming. Forget about equipment, without very specific rules about technique there would be only one stroke, the fastest stroke: the crawl. To me that doesn't sound like an "advance" for the sport.



Your swimming argument holds no water. Just as in cycling swimming has different diciplines for each stroke. I'd like to see someone try the crawl during a backstroke race. Your argument makes no sense.

When did I ever lead on that I'd rather see no rules? Rules are a part of sport, just like technical advancements. I would highly doubt that a recumbent could win the TDF. Besides, what do recumbents have to do with radios? Once again, if your going to make an argument, at least make sure that your comparisons make sense.

I don't see how radios are such a bad thing. Even if the riders are getting tactical info, they still have to put power to the pedals. There has been many advances in cycling that have benefited the riders and the outcome of some races. How about mutual support vehicles, could be looked at as unfair, but accepted. Spare bikes and mechanics on team support vehicles. What about nutriton, energy bars and gels. I guess water and a bannana just wasn't good enough? Carbon bikes, deep dish wheels, lighter more ventilated helmets (hell, helmets at all), lycra/spandex, clipless pedal/shoe combination, shaved legs, I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. 

All these advances, however minor some have been, have moved cycling from the past to the future. If you'd rather see hairy legged guys wearing cotton kits and a leather strap helmets riding steel bikes and carrying their own spare tubes stopping at streams to fill up their water bottles go right ahead, I'll keep moving forward.:thumbsup:


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

It's hard to know how much less information will be communicated with the ban. In the end, the sport revolves around spectators/sponsors. 

Did the sport's audience grow since the advent of radios and if so, how much was the result of the change/improvement in communication with team leaders? 

Will it take longer for team cars to become aware of mechanicals and if so, how many will not make the time limit as a result? Will this simply mean that the wealthy teams will have a platoon of coded communicators (with radios) stationed along the route instead of using inexpensive radios directly? 

Will the reader boards on the support motorcycles remain? If so, it seems that some riders will get information much earlier than others?

Will this lead to agressive driving by team car drivers attempting to get to their people? 

I could be wrong but, of all the things broken in the sport, this should be a pretty low priority problem. Perhaps that energy could be focused on how to benefit sponsors by cleaning up the drug problem with much more aggressive penalties and other more creative deterrents.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> It's hard to know how much less information will be communicated with the ban. In the end, the sport revolves around spectators/sponsors.
> 
> Did the sport's audience grow since the advent of radios and if so, how much was the result of the change/improvement in communication with team leaders?
> 
> ...


There will still be race radios in each car. Course Marshall's will relay info via race radio on gaps, mechanicals, crashes, or needs for bottles. 

There are strict rules for driving in the caravan, position in the caravan, even which side of the road you can change a wheel. There are fines for not following the rules and they are enforced. 

Unfortunately the sport has become about who has the biggest engine and tactics have gradually become less important. If it was all about the engine we should just have TT and hill climbs


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

coop said:


> Radios aren't part of the technical part? You'll have to explain that one, I'd have to say they are both technical and tactical. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't tactics discussed prior to a race in team meetings. I'm pretty sure the fat dude sits in on those too.
> 
> Advancement in sport is always hard for traditionalist, but the radio isn't the only technical/tactical advancement going on right now. What about heart rate monitors and power measuring computers. Riders are using those are they not?
> 
> If the riders no longer want radios as some other poster has mentioned, then do away with them. They are the ones who ultimately have to put forth effort. If the UCI is just doing it to make a point about something, then it's my belief that they are ignoring advances in sport.


Wheels, frames, training with a HRM or SRM can all help you climb a hill faster....radios cannot. 

I am not sure if I would pit this as traditionalist against newcomers. When radio's came into the sport I was completely for them, but it is clear it has made the sport much more predicatble and yes, boring.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

coop said:


> The individual rider still has to put power to the pedals no matter what's going on in his ear.


 Have you ever seen those races where they put the camera in the car during the time trial? The first time I saw one I thought. 'This is going to be great. We're going to see how real time tactics and strategy can make even a TT rider faster, the real inside of the sport.' I've seen it several times now, and the net total advice by every director seems to be, "Try to go faster, try to go faster, try to go faster, try to go faster," repeated endlessly for the length of the race. Talk about purgatory for the poor rider.


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*I agree. .*



bigpinkt said:


> Wow, the UCI doing something right for a change.


I friggin' hate race radios. They make the sport too "sterile."


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

JSR said:


> The birth of a new form of cheating.


___________________________________________
the new bike computers will be sweet!!!!! I expect to see a comp that will be able to receive text messages!!!


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> the new bike computers will be sweet!!!!! I expect to see a comp that will be able to receive text messages!!!


That's what I'm talking about! We just needed a little ingenuity applied to the problem.

Add little speech to text appication and you have a nice two-way commo going.

JSR


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

coop said:


> Just as in cycling swimming has different diciplines for each stroke.


That's the point: many rules -- no matter how arbitrary they might seem -- are intended simply to make the sport more exciting.



coop said:


> Besides, what do recumbents have to do with radios? ... if your [sic] going to make an argument, at least make sure that your comparisons make sense.


You were ranting about steel vs. carbon fiber before I joined this thread. How does that make more sense than my comparison to a real life rule that shaped the very nature of the sport?



coop said:


> If you'd rather see hairy legged guys wearing cotton kits and a leather strap helmets riding steel bikes and carrying their own spare tubes stopping at streams to fill up their water bottles go right ahead, I'll keep moving forward.:thumbsup:


I'm not a "traditionalist" (if I understand your use of the word). I race on modern equipment. I have no qualms with evaluating new developments in the sport as they arise. I think it's wrong, though, to take every development as a step forward (an "advance") or to present any new attempt to shape the sport as a blind reaction against progress.

Will removing radios hurt the sport or make it more exciting? Isn't that the real issue?


----------



## WrongBikeFred (Oct 19, 2005)

JohnStonebarger said:


> If you have a specific problem with doing away with radios, let's hear it. Otherwise, what are you complaining about?


I like watching how the teams DS play their cards. Only in cycling, the cards they thought were aces may only be fours on a a particular day ot vise versa. Then there's the wild cards that mix up things. It is intresting to see how accuratly each DS judges his and the other riders on a particular day. 

Of course, if the UCI wants to handicapp the better "poker players" in the races to keep them from winning so much, the elimination of radios makes sense. 

....or maybe the UCI realy just wants to put the focus on the players, not the coach, 

who knows


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

JohnStonebarger said:


> That's the point: many rules -- no matter how arbitrary they might seem -- are intended simply to make the sport more exciting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Once again your rules argument isn't tying anything together. Your trying to compare swimming strokes to recumbents. Each swimming stroke is a dicipline. Put it this way, if you tried the crawl during a back stroke you'd just look stupid. Just like if you showed up at a road race with a mountain bike, you'd look stupid. So they banned recumbents for TT's, so what. If anything they succeded in making the sport more uniform in appearance.

My "rant" on steel vs. carbon was more about taking steps backwards and creating a rule for no other apparent reason than to create a rule. Just how negatively have radios affected the sport? They obviously changed strategy, but isn't it up to the riders to decide if that is a bad thing? It seems that there is differing opinion on that subject in this very thread. Some say the riders like, some say they don't.

Will removing radios make the sport more exciting? I personally like the strategy involed with radios. It's a technology available to all teams, it's something that can provide some useful info at some useful times, but when it comes down to it, no matter what's going on in the riders ears the only thing that matters is power to the pedals.

The real question should be do the riders want radios? You can argue that taking them out would put more excitment back into racing, but then again you could make the same argument about doping.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Creakyknees said:


> from PEZcyclingnews.com:
> "The Radio's Demise?
> The technical committee of the UCI has recommended that radios be banned from racing starting in 2010. The association of race organizers also agrees with the idea and according to WielerUpdate, it's only a matter of time before radios are a thing of the past."



I see PEZ is doing their usual fine job of fact checking. The whole story is bunk.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/oct08/oct31news


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

coop said:


> when it comes down to it, no matter what's going on in the riders ears the only thing that matters is power to the pedals.


Hold on a second. You race, or at least follow racing, and you're trying to suggest that it always comes down to who's cranking out the most watts? If that's what you're saying then this entire discussion is way over your head at 38,000' and you should just step away from the keyboard now.


----------



## coop (Jun 8, 2008)

Circlip said:


> Hold on a second. You race, or at least follow racing, and you're trying to suggest that it always comes down to who's cranking out the most watts? If that's what you're saying then this entire discussion is way over your head at 38,000' and you should just step away from the keyboard now.



Huh? Clearly you haven't understood my arguments. My particular point that you're addressing is that if the DS is screaming go go go, and the rider doesn't have it, he's not going. Radios aren't going to ride the bikes for the riders. I think that they're good for info and real time strategy, but it comes down to individual riders to make the team strategy work. 

Next time I can get my 3 year old's pre school teacher to explain it to you if that was still too difficult for you


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

coop said:


> Huh? Clearly you haven't understood my arguments. My particular point that you're addressing is that if the DS is screaming go go go, and the rider doesn't have it, he's not going. Radios aren't going to ride the bikes for the riders. I think that they're good for info and real time strategy, but it comes down to individual riders to make the team strategy work.
> 
> Next time I can get my 3 year old's pre school teacher to explain it to you if that was still too difficult for you


Just a question, have you ever been in a race, with a radio, with a DS in a car behind you on the radio?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

32and3cross said:


> I see PEZ is doing their usual fine job of fact checking. The whole story is bunk.
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/oct08/oct31news



yeah... just saw that... well it was a fun thread anyway.

did you hear that Lance Armstrong might be coming back from retirement?


----------



## Circlip (Jul 26, 2005)

coop said:


> Huh? Clearly you haven't understood my arguments.


Understanding your arguments doesn't necessarily equate to agreeing with them.



coop said:


> My particular point that you're addressing is that if the DS is screaming go go go, and the rider doesn't have it, he's not going. Radios aren't going to ride the bikes for the riders. I think that they're good for info and real time strategy, but it comes down to individual riders to make the team strategy work.


You want the sport to be all about physical form. Some of us appreciate the subtleties and execution of strategy and tactics. Being observant in the peloton, and making astute tactical decisions on the fly is part of what makes a complete racer. Reducing the riders to simple producers of physical output at the command of the DS is a poor shadow of the essence of the sport. As for the riders who want to keep the radios, I can understand that it's a nice safety blanket that reduces their own accountability when tactics (or lack of form available to bring to bear when trying to execute them) don't play out in their favor. To that I can only suggest they HTFU.



coop said:


> Next time I can get my 3 year old's pre school teacher to explain it to you if that was still too difficult for you


Uh, sure... I'll be waiting here for them to post up.


----------



## function (Jun 20, 2008)

This may finally make flat race courses more interesting.


----------

