IS the UCI serious?
View Full Version : IS the UCI serious?
The UCI is considering a ban on the communication system
between Sport Directors and riders, just as was done in
football, as the FIFA has forbidden the use of this system.
The argument is that riders can loose their concentration by
listening, talking or by tuning their pocket-radio. Sport
directors, so far, are heavily against this UCI idea. (HNB)
Taken from www.cycling4all.com 08-03-04
rondechumpion@aol.com (ronde chumpion) wrote in
news:62f26b38.0403080909.4fcb97f8@posting.google.com:
> The UCI is considering a ban on the communication system
> between Sport Directors and riders, just as was done in
> football, as the FIFA has forbidden the use of this
> system. The argument is that riders can loose their
> concentration by listening, talking or by tuning their pocket-
> radio. Sport directors, so far, are heavily against this
> UCI idea. (HNB)
>
>
> Taken from www.cycling4all.com 08-03-04
I don't necessarily agree with the UCI that radio
communications are "dangerous". However, I think it makes
the racing tactics a lot more boring. With radios the chance
of a GC contender sneaking into a break unnoticed is
virtually nill. That is why I would ban them, to liven up
the racing.
> I don't necessarily agree with the UCI that radio
> communications are "dangerous". However, I think it makes
> the racing tactics a lot more
boring.
> With radios the chance of a GC contender sneaking into a
> break unnoticed
is
> virtually nill. That is why I would ban them, to liven up
> the racing.
I agree, it takes a lot of fun out of racing. It has always
surprised me how fast radio communications were accepted as
conservative as cycling is.
"Boyd Speerschneider" <bspeerscNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:Xns94A67CFC71431bspeerscNOSPAM@65.32.1.7...
> rondechumpion@aol.com (ronde chumpion) wrote in
> news:62f26b38.0403080909.4fcb97f8@posting.google.com:
>
> > The UCI is considering a ban on the communication system
> > between Sport Directors and riders, just as was done in
> > football, as the FIFA has forbidden the use of this
> > system. The argument is that riders can loose their
> > concentration by listening, talking or by tuning their
> > pocket-radio. Sport directors, so far, are heavily
> > against this UCI idea. (HNB)
> >
> >
> > Taken from www.cycling4all.com 08-03-04
>
> I don't necessarily agree with the UCI that radio
> communications are "dangerous". However, I think it makes
> the racing tactics a lot more
boring.
> With radios the chance of a GC contender sneaking into a
> break unnoticed
is
> virtually nill. That is why I would ban them, to liven up
> the racing.
Ronald wrote:
>>I don't necessarily agree with the UCI that radio
>>communications are "dangerous". However, I think it makes
>>the racing tactics a lot more
>
> boring.
>
>>With radios the chance of a GC contender sneaking into a
>>break unnoticed
>
> is
>
>>virtually nill. That is why I would ban them, to liven up
>>the racing.
>
>
> I agree, it takes a lot of fun out of racing. It has
> always surprised me how fast radio communications were
> accepted as conservative as cycling is.
>
If anything, radio commincations is considerably safer. Is
it better to have team cars storming past the peloton to
communicate with a rider in a break? Anything which reduces
car/cyclist interactions is, to me, a positive.
I agree, however, radio communications do affect the
"game", especially with the augmentation of numeric data
channels, like HR & power. Still, whether the tactical
result is more "boring", as opposed to just different, is a
matter of opinion.
Dan
In article
<62f26b38.0403080909.4fcb97f8@posting.google.com>,
rondechumpion@aol.com says...
>The UCI is considering a ban on the communication system
>between Sport Directors and riders, just as was done in
>football, as the FIFA has forbidden the use of this
>system. The argument is that riders can loose their
>concentration by listening, talking or by tuning their pocket-
>radio. Sport directors, so far, are heavily against this
>UCI idea. (HNB)
You would think they would come up with a better excuse for
getting rid of radios. Have there been any incidents they
can point to?
-------------
Alex
"Alex Rodriguez" <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:c2ikos$g02$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
> In article
> <62f26b38.0403080909.4fcb97f8@posting.google.com>,
> rondechumpion@aol.com says...
> >The UCI is considering a ban on the communication system
> >between Sport Directors and riders, just as was done in
> >football, as the FIFA has
forbidden
> >the use of this system. The argument is that riders can
> >loose their concentration by listening, talking or by
> >tuning their pocket-radio. Sport directors, so far, are
> >heavily against this UCI idea. (HNB)
>
> You would think they would come up with a better excuse
> for getting rid of radios. Have there been any incidents
> they can point to?
> -------------
> Alex
This reminds me of when aero brake levers started being
used. The USCF questioned all clubs about any accidents
happening because riders' hands slipped off the top of the
brake hood because of no brake cable being there as a
restraint. Quite funny at the time. I'm certain radios are
at least as dangerous aero brake levers.
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:13:38 GMT, Boyd Speerschneider
<bspeerscNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I don't necessarily agree with the UCI that radio
>communications are "dangerous". However, I think it makes
>the racing tactics a lot more boring. With radios the
>chance of a GC contender sneaking into a break unnoticed is
>virtually nill. That is why I would ban them, to liven up
>the racing.
I agree with that.
JT
B. Lafferty wrote:
> as a restraint. Quite funny at the time. I'm certain
> radios are at least as dangerous aero brake levers.
Except perhaps the Profile ones...
"Dan Connelly" <djconnel@i_e_e_e._o_r_g> wrote in message
>
> If anything, radio commincations is considerably safer. Is
> it better to
have
> team cars storming past the peloton to communicate with a
> rider in a
break?
> Anything which reduces car/cyclist interactions is, to me,
> a positive.
It is highly unusual for team cars to "storm past the
peloton" to communicate with riders in the break. A cursory
examination of the UCI rules does not designate a specific
time gap between the break and the peloton where the
commissaire allows team cars to move up to the break, but
generally the break must exceed a minute time gap in order
for a team car to advance to the break.
BTW, the UCI has some cute nomenclature: it refers to
musettes as "Bonk Bags" (rule 2.2.05) and rule 2.2.027 "The
purloining of goods from anyone at all is strictly
forbidden."
>
> I agree, however, radio communications do affect the
> "game", especially with the augmentation of numeric data
> channels, like HR & power. Still, whether the tactical
> result is more "boring", as opposed to just
different,
> is a matter of opinion.
>
> Dan
I think Museeuw's comments after KBK were very indicative
that the radios play too much of a role in racing: Johan
Museeuw blamed the team's ear radios, that weren't working
well. "We didn't know, for instance, how good Bettini felt
and whether he was sure of winning the sprint. Therefore we
had to gamble. Do we let Paolo, still an absolute top rider,
commit himself? Or do we chase still? Finally we chose for
the latter just a bit too late."
Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu> wrote in
news:c2ikos$g02$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu:
> In article
> <62f26b38.0403080909.4fcb97f8@posting.google.com>,
> rondechumpion@aol.com says...
>>The UCI is considering a ban on the communication system
>>between Sport Directors and riders, just as was done in
>>football, as the FIFA has forbidden the use of this
>>system. The argument is that riders can loose their
>>concentration by listening, talking or by tuning their pocket-
>>radio. Sport directors, so far, are heavily against this
>>UCI idea. (HNB)
>
> You would think they would come up with a better excuse
> for getting rid of radios. Have there been any incidents
> they can point to? -------------
Kivilev.
-Owen
Boyd Speerschneider <bspeerscNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't necessarily agree with the UCI that radio
> communications are "dangerous". However, I think it makes
> the racing tactics a lot more boring. With radios the
> chance of a GC contender sneaking into a break unnoticed
> is virtually nill. That is why I would ban them, to liven
> up the racing.
Yes, certainly. The sport is dying because the racing is
boring. It may as well be baseball.
How about the guys on motorcycles with chalkboards? Should
we ban them also? The chance of a GC contender sneaking into
a break unnoticed is virtually nil with those guys around.
They should make them race the Tour unsupported and on fixed
gears. That's how Garin did it.
Bob Schwartz cvcc@execpc.com
Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> I think Museeuw's comments after KBK were very indicative
> that the radios play too much of a role in racing: Johan
> Museeuw blamed the team's ear radios, that weren't working
> well. "We didn't know, for instance, how good Bettini felt
> and whether he was sure of winning the sprint. Therefore
> we had to gamble. Do we let Paolo, still an absolute top
> rider, commit himself? Or do we chase still? Finally we
> chose for the latter just a bit too late."
>
>
I was at the Stephen Roche Mallorca camp in 2002, and
spoke to him about this subject. He was strongly against
radios. Obviously he didn't think team cars communicating
with riders were a problem, and who am I to disagree with
him? In any case, the support vehicles move up to cover
breaks anyway.
Nevertheless, it seems the need for rider
communication increases the pressure on team vehicles.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Still, it hardly seems to me likely that radios are a
safety concern.
Dan
"Dan Connelly" <djconnel@i_e_e_e._o_r_g> wrote in message
>
> Still, it hardly seems to me likely that radios are a
> safety concern.
>
> Dan
Agreed.
rondechumpion@aol.com (ronde chumpion) wrote in
news:62f26b38.0403080909.4fcb97f8@posting.google.com:
> The UCI is considering a ban on the communication system
> between Sport Directors and riders, just as was done in
> football, as the FIFA has forbidden the use of this
> system. The argument is that riders can loose their
> concentration by listening, talking or by tuning their pocket-
> radio. Sport directors, so far, are heavily against this
> UCI idea. (HNB)
>
>
> Taken from www.cycling4all.com 08-03-04
I'm wondering if maybe the UCI might only allow 1 rider per
team(ie the road captain) wear the radio as a concession.
Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> They should make them race the Tour unsupported and on
> fixed gears. That's how Garin did it.
I thought Garin had a one speed?
"Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
>Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>> They should make them race the Tour unsupported and on
>> fixed gears. That's how Garin did it.
>
>I thought Garin had a one speed?
There are many misconception that surrounds the epic figure
of Garin. For one, most people think that he was a frog. He
wasn't. The frogs nationalized him because he was a great
rider, someone to be proud of. But he was a Northern
Italian, born near Aosta.
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:40:55 GMT, Davide Tosi wrote:
> But [Garin] was a Northern Italian, born near Aosta.
Yes, see http://www.memoire-du- (http://www.memoire-du-/)
cyclisme.net/lexique/naturalisations.php What would have
been his name, Maurizio Garino?
Davide Tosi wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>> They should make them race the Tour unsupported and on
>>> fixed gears. That's how Garin did it.
>>
>> I thought Garin had a one speed?
>
> There are many misconception that surrounds the epic
> figure of Garin. For one, most people think that he was a
> frog. He wasn't. The frogs nationalized him because he was
> a great rider, someone to be proud of. But he was a
> Northern Italian, born near Aosta.
Ah, well, that counts for a lot. Being born Italian must
explain that little lapse in language comprehension when he
mistook the phrase "bicycle race" to mean "train ride."
"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
>
> I think Museeuw's comments after KBK were very indicative
> that the radios play too much of a role in racing: Johan
> Museeuw blamed the team's ear radios, that weren't working
> well. "We didn't know, for instance, how good Bettini felt
> and whether he was sure of winning the sprint. Therefore
> we had to gamble. Do we let Paolo, still an absolute top
> rider, commit himself? Or do we chase still? Finally we
> chose for the latter just a bit too late."
Yeah, and look how sucky that race turned out to be.
So are you saying it would have been a more or less exciting
if QS brought it back? It might have been a bunch sprint,
but the excitement was already had.
That Paris-Nice stage yesterday really sucked.
Ewoud Dronkert <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 11:40:55 GMT, Davide Tosi wrote:
>> But [Garin] was a Northern Italian, born near Aosta.
>
>Yes, see http://www.memoire-du- (http://www.memoire-du-/)
>cyclisme.net/lexique/naturalisations.php What would have
>been his name, Maurizio Garino?
No. Garin was Garin. Family names ending with consonants are
absolutely normal in the Alpine regions (see Rebellin,
Fondriest, Moser and many many others). Anyway, even if it
was a french-isation of an Italian family name, the original
would not have been Garin-o, since names ending in -o mean a
Southern origin. The only exception are some family names
ending in -ato in the region near Venice.
As far as the first know, I don't know. It may have been
already Maurice instead of Maurizio, since in the region
near Aosta people are bilingual, they speak both French and
Italian and at those times, the French language was probably
more used than the Italian one, there.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
