Rajflyboy

bbbean 

Nothing stops the best riders from doing that now, and they do. Electronics are an aid, not a substitute for experience, instinct, intellect, and strategy. All the technology in the world doesn't stop a brilliant rider from winning. Consider Peter Sagan - he's instinct on parade, regardless of technology. The teams that dominate the sport are dominating through hiring solid riders, training them, and using winning strategies.

For that matter, pay more attention to the one day classics and races other than the TdF. It's very fashionable to complain that Sky dominates, but look at the churn in smaller races. Look at Geraint Thomas's 2018 win. Consider Froome's incredible solo win in the 2018 Giro. Look at the Quickstep leadout train.

Racing is still very much a race. There may be a formula for winning the TdF, but that doesn't mean 200 racers are going to stick to the plan.

Doge

Sure. I agree and there are many exceptions. My feeling is more are looking at the guide and changing their behavior than before it existed. If nobody is responding to what the display says, either directly or via the coach, why have the display?

It might also be the fewer PEDs used has settled things down a bit.

bbbean 

Who said anything about "nobody"? It's not an either/or question. You take the best technology and information available, throw in the best cyclists and coaches in the world, and race. No need to be all tech or no tech.

As an analogy, I enjoy riding my bike and I enjoy training. Nothing says any given ride can't accomplish training goals and still be a fun morning on the bike.

That is entirely possible. The world is a different place than it was 10 or 20 or 30 years ago.

Doge

That is the point I think.

In a sport somebody - fans, officials, committees decide where the lines are.

-how far,many days, how steep, what mass and the parts, geometry

Deciding to disallow ABS or AWD in some race cars, as well as computer links is part of the "parts" part. It put winning more on the driver and less on the engineers and crew, although still important.


I see the, presumably, only legally drugged top athletes as amazingly close in ability. Add the electronics and the variability is even less.


I'm not up there with the Hunger Games in introducing purposeful hazards (but they understood the issue in the movie), but completely eliminating human aids would increase that variability and make the sport a bit more fun [for me] to watch. I would also enjoy races that are about speed and power and skill over endurance. I understand that is incredible work, planning and talent, to race that long - and win, but find 60 mile races more interesting than 120 mile races. When TV has an hour to fill to cover a race, they know the parts to focus on. those are the parts that are using electronics the least.

Rajflyboy

Rajflyboy

Hotel Domestique | Experience the pinnacle of fine living.



make a life out of finishing second

boggles my mind

rossiny

I agree 110% . The whole domestique thing sounds disgusting to me. Like a suck up😚... . The reason bike racing turns me off is all the blood doping in recent years of the supposedly "gifted" rider. Team work I can see but sacrificing yourself for an elite rider to win just kinda seems fake. So the elite is only as elite as the amount a domestique is willing to sacrifice himself .

Rajflyboy

I guess bike racers need to watch the movie “Talladega Nights”

Trakhak

The domestique arrangement came about for one simple reason: professional bike racing is the hardest sport ever created, far harder than any other professional sports. Therefore, the most successful pro bike race teams are the teams where the domestiques ride most selflessly in support of the star rider. If you prefer other arrangements, you have plenty of other sports to follow.

rossiny

Correct, then if the chosen champ wins is he winning because of the domestique. . So who is the champ, the chosen champ or the other guy?

DiabloScott

This to me is what makes bike racing tactics interesting. Road racing is not track and field, and it's not velodrome racing... and it sure as hell isn't NASCAR. I find those things boring. But when the domestique from one team goes with the break with the favorites in it and the protected rider stays in the pack - that is strategy. And if he can convince the riders in the break that he's not really a threat and then does a little less work, he might win. And if the protected rider is in the break and some other group tries to bridge and the domestique goes with them to foul things up... that's pro racing at its finest.

The fact that he can be the strongest, fastest, most protected rider on the best team with the best domestiques and still not win because somebody called his bluff or outsmarted him with smart use of his own domestiques... that's why I watch. Well, that and the scenery.

bbbean 

If only there was a discipline where it was one man against the clock in a test of just how fast he could ride a given course.,,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI_Ro...27s_time_trial

Rajflyboy

Even more tactics in track racing. I enjoy watching the match sprints.

Ironfish653

Ask Geraint Thomas.

As as far as the glory, the first guy across the line gets to wear the jersey; but the Team structure traditionally says the winner splits the $$ with his lieutenants.
Short version: they help him win because they get paid to. They get paid more if he does win.

They’re professional bike racers. They’re doing for the money, not the ‘purity of the sport’

If you help your guy win a lot, some other team might offer you more money to help their guy win.

Rajflyboy

Something just doesn’t seem right about playing and working not to win.

asgelle

Is an offensive tackle not playing to win because he doesn't score touchdowns? (or for fans of football, why is there a goalie who isn't expected to score goals and help the team win?)

ThermionicScott 

I’m starting to fear that my whole professional career will be a meaningless waste since I’m not aiming to become CEO... 😉

bbbean 

New to the concept of team sports?

Out of curiosity, do you race? FWIW, there are two kinds of races that are especially satisfying. The most obvious is one that ends with you standing on the podium. What you're apparently missing is that it is also very satisfying to make a strategy come together and put one of your teammates on the podium. That counts as winning, too. It requires a lot more than just being fast on the bike.

caloso

I think OP's confusion (and I'm trying to be generous) stems from the fact that bike racing is a team sport that appears on the surface to be an individual sport.

MinnMan

(Not just to you, bbbean , but to all the well meaning explainers on this thread)

Give up. There's something about this that Rajflyboy can't or doesn't want to understand and no amount of explanation is going to change that. He has a fantasy of how road racing should be that is not anchored in reality. It's harmless to let him fantasize and pointless to try to burst his make-believe bubble.

Rajflyboy

This

in America we aim to be first. Not second or third.

Rajflyboy

Say this to Greg Lemond

Rajflyboy

this guy didn’t need or get any help and he won

my kind of rider on a small team without much help or funding and he destroyed the field in the sprint

bbbean 

Thanks for sharing your insightful observations. I look forward to reading more of your in depth race analyses.