active network espn

Currently Being Moderated

First Rest Day Musings

Posted by Bruce Hildenbrand on Jul 13, 2009 12:20:27 PM

After Christian Vande Velde's fourth place finish in the 2008 Tour, much was expected from the team leader of the Garmin-Slipstream squad. Then he had a very serious crash in the Giro and everything changed. A so-so performance in the pre-Tour warm up, the Tour of Switzerland, was a cause for concern.  But, as the Tour left the Pyrenees, those concerns appear to be unfounded as Vande Velde was climbing well with all the the heavy hitters. I talked with him after the first mountain stage to see what's up.

 

 

Christian admitted that he was beat up pretty badly after the crash and had a slow recovery.  "I was kind of in denial of how bad I really was," said Vande Velde noting that he tried to come back too early and had to take three to four days off as a result.

 

There is no place to hide at the Tour. How did Vande Velde feel going into the race?  "It has been stressful these last couple of weeks leading up to the Tour not knowing where I stand and what's going on(with my conditioning)," said Vande Velde. But, Christian rode well in the opening time trial, the team time trial and the first mountain stage adding that he 'felt great' on he final slopes of Arcalis. 

 

Last year, Christian only had Ryder Hesjedal in the mountains and that was only on one, albeit, critical stage.  This year, Olympic Gold Medalist, Bradley Wiggins has come over from Columbia-Highroad. Wiggins lost a reported nine pounds to be lighter to help Vande Velde in the mountains. Vande Velde see a lot of similarities to his situation last year. "He (Bradley) has no idea what he can and cannot do.  He could definitely have attacked more today.  It is just going to be a process of him knowing his body."

 

Christian wasn't sure exactly what the Garmin-Slipstream team could do to take on the super-powerful Astana team. On the climb to Arcalis, there were four Astana riders in the lead group and Contador was off the front. "They didn't even go at full guns today so I don't know," said Vande Velde.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tomorrow's stage 10 and Friday's stage 13 will be unique in that the Tour organizers are banning the riders and their team directors from using radios. The radios have been in use since 1993 when Team Motorola introduced the Peloton Communication System (PCS). Back then, I wrote that I didn't like the radios and received some interesting comments back from the folks at Motorola. But, regardless of my protestations, the radios were here to stay and are now a critical part of a team's equipment.

 

Those in favor of the radios say that they increase the safety of the riders by first, warning them of dangerous situations up the road, and secondly, eliminating the need for riders to drop back to the team cars to talk to their directors.

 

Those opposed say that race radios turn the riders into nothing more than robots who obey every command given to them by their directors. This has made the racing boring and predictable. Do you ever wonder why the peloton almost always seems to catch the breakaway at the last possible moment?

 

What is interesting is that while most team directors support radios (well, duh), the riders seem to be split on the issue both sides citing the concerns noted above.

 

On Monday, at the Tour's first rest day, the teams were supposed to meet to decide what to do about the ban. Clearly, many team directors see it as a safety issue and believe that banning radios put their riders at risk. Fourteen of the twenty teams present at the Tour have signed a petition opposing the ban and there is a rumour of a rider strike at the stage start on Tuesday.

 

Personally, I am still opposed to race radios. The riders have to drop back to the team cars to get bottles and they don't seem to be crashing right and left. If the gendarmes do their job, upcoming road hazards should be handled properly.

 

I remember the days when it wasn't just power output, but one's ability to read a race that was considered an asset. However, being a realist, I realize that radios have become so integrated into the team's strategy and tactics that it will take a real paradigm shift to go back to the old ways. There is no doubt the racing would get more exciting without the radios.

 

Here's another suggestion to increase the excitement of the big races. Include some big dirt climbs like the Col du Grand Parpaillon and the Col de la Moutiere near Jausiers and the Col du Areche near Aime in the Alps. In the Pyrenees, you can climb another four miles and 1200' on a good dirt road from the top of the Col du Tourmalet. The Giro has included a few dirt roads in its race, how about the Tour?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Mark Cavendish has a unique decal on his bikes. Here is a picture of the decal on his road bike.

 

Here is the decal on his time trial bike.

643 Views Tags: tour_de_france, bruce_hildenbrand, christian_vandevelde, mark_cavendish, garmin_slipstream, bradley_wiggins


Jul 13, 2009 2:23 PM Guest Jim  says:

Setting aside the safey issue for a moment, as that may not be very serious given the alternative ways of ensuring safety, it seems to me that the main difference with radios is the more highly coordinated strategy and tactics that are possible.  Banning radios will force more decisions and risk taking onto the individual riders themselves.  The most likely difference will be tactical errors and mistakes being made by individuals who lack information or cannot coordinate with their teams.  Unless this is case of people rooting for riders to make high-profile mistakes during a complex and exhausting 6 hour event, it is more likely another attempt to damage the hegemony achieved by the dominant teams (e.g., Astana).  This would seem to fit under the category of "anything that will add some more randomness into the tour and disrupt the dominant teams' ability to control the race."  Some may yearn for more disruption, but it seems to me like a shabby way to keep one team from dominating.  I think I'd rather see the best team and riders win while seeking other ways to level the playing field and giving other teams an incentive to improve.  During the Col du Tourmalet stage, we saw one of the Tour's great riders, Jens Voigt, drop back from the break to help Andy Schleck, and later stop with 4K to go to help pace Andy back to the peloton after a flat.  Would he and the team have been able to do either of those without radios?  Would the tour be better off if he hadn't?  Personally, I think that radios just change the strategies and tactics that can be used - they open new doors.  I think that the most likely outcome of banning them will be mistakes and missed opportunities, and I think that's a poor way to improve the competition.

Jul 13, 2009 4:24 PM Guest Mike  says in response to Jim:

Think about this.  If a breakaway occurs guys in the middle and peloton will not know how many riders are in the break or who they are.  This will add a new dimension to the sport and it will make guys with less experience ride more actively.  The team mangers can’t tell them who and how far ahead the break is.

 

As it is now, team managers tell the peloton how fast they have to ride in order to catch the break and more or less the race is scripted.  “OK boys the break is 1:10 ahead of you.  Increase your speed 10% and you will catch them 3km before the finish”. Then the teams set up there sprinters and get them in position for the finish.  How much cooler will it be if they have to figure this out on their own?  Quite a bit if you ask me.

 

I disagree with Johan Bruyneel and the other team managers.  The TDF is the perfect place to experiment and see how the use of radios affects the race in general terms.  I still think the best (smart) riders will still win.  It may be a pain for the riders and team managers, but this is good for the fans.

 

Improving the sport is subjective.  I think planning and scripting every move is great on its own.  But the best riders should be able to feel the tactical landscape of the race.  A fit and smart rider should undue a fit less experienced rider.  Radios bridge the experience gap to much.

 

Gaining an edge of any kind in order to get results for the team, the sponsors, fans and a better contract have lead to doping scandal after doping scandal.  I for one would welcome a return to racing where experience is appreciated and rewarded.  Then the door for an edge will open up wider in areas other than super enhanced, mutant, cyber fitness and drugs.

 

As far a safety goes the UCI and organizers will have to do more to ensure safe conditions and mitigate road hazards to ensure the safest conditions possible.  This also makes the teams and smart riders take more time in preparation to learning the course and pre-riding if and when necessary.  I was amazed at how many crashes there where in this year’s Team Time Trial.  Even with radios and manager warnings there was still plenty of riders hitting the tarmac.  I wonder if the teams spent more time pre-riding and studying the course would this have happened?  The teams that did well pre-road and trained on the course.  This to a small degree illustrates that the best team is the best prepared team.  The strategy in a TTT is to ride fast, not crash and get 5 riders over the line as fast as possible.  Tactical information is less of an issue, there are no breaks, there are no competitors.  Given all this Astana still won.  Not because of team radios, but because they paid the price in preparation and they knew the course.  Astana was the best, that is why they won.

 

The bottom line to me is no radios is better for the fans.  Cycling fans have had a rough run the past few years with our heroes falling like dominos.  No radios makes the race more interesting and ties us back to the roots and deep culture of pro cycling.  In a sport so steeped in tradition this should not be a big leap for the riders to make.

Jul 13, 2009 8:06 PM Guest DJcontraption  says:

All:

 

After such detailed posts, and with such passion behind them, I struggled to decide whether to point out the obvious.  But the softer side lost out, so, with a bit of needling humor, I'll just say:

 

The tour has been so boring so far.  People caught out in echelons, breaks that have stayed away, impromptu late attacks, riders going off course in the last 700 meters (just what was that Euskatel Euskadi rider thinking?), head-over-heels tumbles in team time trials (sometimes in simultaneous quadruplicate), minutes lost, seconds gained, tenths of a second deciding a day's jersey.  Racing with radios sure has made racing entirely predictable.

 

Really.  As Mr. Hildenbrand notes, it's been __sixteen__ years since the first radios were introduced.  Has the last decade and a half plus really been that boring?  By way of another sport, coaches are yelling at their players nonstop in a basketball game.  Are they also automotons?  Sure, they miss some of the calls because of the noise in the arena; by the way, how many times has the sound on your bluetooth broken up, or a connection dropped, or the earpiece bit the dust because of a combination of weather and sweat and salt? Or have you heard anything at all over the wind and noise around you in a pack of 170-180 other cyclists? 

 

I say all this to point out the obvious:  saying something that a director wants a racer to hear, in person or by radio and earpiece, doesn't mean that the racer is ipso facto obliged to do soor can even hear clearly what's being said, or understands precisely.  A new technology (and has been pointed out previously, this technology hardly qualifies for "new" anymore) provides for new opportunity, but both good and bad; put differently (and to take Jim's post in another direction), the advent of radios allows for a whole new range of ways things can go awry.  Finally, cycling is as wed to tradition as any number of other sportsbut it also embraces quite a bit of "the new," too:  will electric shifting be banned, too, because the now-oft-reported rock-solid precision of the front shifting take out all the element of surprise of a blown shift?  Do rarely-dropped chains make for more yawn-inducing racing? Or with the great improvement in shifting do we also get the opportunity for random things to go not-quite-as-planned in a different way:  a short in the battery means our favorite racer Y has to pedal some insane cadence--and still pulls out the win, or a top three, or a bridge back up to a break.

 

This is all to say, "new" (such as it is, here) is different, granted.  But different doesn't neccesarily have to mean bad or good.  Different can just mean different.

 

As always,

 

Any thoughts?

 

Sincerely,

DJcontraption

Nashville, TN

Jul 14, 2009 3:25 PM Guest Andrew Bowdle  says:

Bruce, I am totally in favor of dirt/gravel roads as you suggest.  A traditional part of the grand tours that should be continued.