900aero

Why is it that cycling commentary and rider interviews never discuss the bike? It seems to be a taboo subject which cannot be mentioned unless its a very peripheral, passing remark. Most other sports where equipment is used (motor racing, yachting...) there is regular and often detailed discussion of the gear, whats working, whats not.....pro cycling is mostly silent. Some magazines will do an analysis of pro-team kit now and then but rarely with a rider interview as well. Having said that, I'm more thinking about the TV coverage than print.

This seems odd as most people who tune into watch cycling races or buy magazines are fairly focussed (?obsessed? boarder-line compulsives? ) on their bikes, technology and everything related. Its not like the audience would be offended or may not understand the conversation if it dwelt on the bikes for a minute here and there. Nevertheless, the only reasons I can think of are:

• Its somehow seen as too technical by the broadcasters in their desire to appeal to a wide (ie uninformed) audience.
• No-one wants to discuss gear in case they say the wrong thing and upset their sponsors/patrons
• Somehow everyone has decided that really, all the bikes are the same and there is no point comparing.

Neither of these really hold water to me. Anyone care to offer thoughts? Enlightenment?

thnx

gsteinb

or you don't pay close enough attention

for example


https://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/...elo_testeam_s3

900aero

Possible. I definitely missed that one article from 2008. Nevertheless its true that online media does take time to look at tech - however, actual rider interviews still seem thin on the ground. My question is predominantly about TV coverage though. When did Phil/Paul/Matt last name a bike mfr or go into any detail of their merits? Ask a rider how their bike helped with their performance?

Bacciagalupe

I really don't give a crap about Phil Liggett's opinion of bicycle brands. Their commentary is bad enough without them constantly shilling for manufacturers or appealing to gearheads.

I don't care to hear it from pros, either. They ride what they are paid to ride; they promote what they're paid to promote. That doesn't indicate credibility.

marqueemoon

Usually it's just some segment where some product manager is giving a dumbed down summary of what's awesome about a particular pro's bike.

I'd be more interested in more coverage of what the mechanics do. There's a good bit in A Sunday In Hell.

Angio Graham

Its not about the bike.

calamarichris

+1! There was a bit of an homage (or perhaps coat-tail standing) in Overcoming, which opens with a mechanic spraying CSC's carbon Cervelos with a pressure-sprayer.

The beauty of bicycling is that the motor & pilot are far more crucial & interesting than the mere dumb materials that make all the difference for Nascar or Sailing.
That still doesn't stop us cycling consumers (many of whom could stand to lose 20 pounds or more) from lusting after the latest titanium bottle cage bolt or carbon-fiber geegaw that will shave 20 grams from our machines.

merlinextraligh

On NBC Sports coverage of the TDF, there are always little feature pieces about various new bikes, pieces of equipment. Usually these are just thinly veiled ads.

Asking a rider about his bike in an interview during a stage race would be next to worthless. You'd either get a plug for the team's equipment sponsor or not much at all.

gsteinb

hyhuu

At that level, all bikes are really the same. Cav, Wiggins, Contador, etc can win with any of those bikes and many other bikes not in the Tour.

eduardo76

i think i know what you are asking, OP (specially if you compare to F1 racing, etc); but i think the reasons you mentioned, when combined, pretty much explains this phenomenum:
1. Its somehow seen as too technical by the broadcasters in their desire to appeal to a wide (ie uninformed) audience. (PLUS, AS YOU MENTIONED, WE ARE ALL OBSESSED WITH EQUIPMENT, AND PHIL WOULDN'T MENTION ANTHING NEW ABOUT THE NEW TREK DOMANE THAT WE HAVE NOT READ ABOUT ALREADY)
2. No-one wants to discuss gear in case they say the wrong thing and upset their sponsors/patrons (PLUS, IF THEY DID DISCUSS ANY GEAR, IT WOULD BE JUST ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SPONSOR - "THIS BIKE RODE BEAUTIFULLY ALL DAY, JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF STIFFNESS AND COMFORT")
3. Somehow everyone has decided that really, all the bikes are the same and there is no point comparing. (PLUS, THEY MOSTLY ARE THE SAME - THE UCI MAKES SURE OF THAT - AFTER ALL, EVEN THE BOTTLE CAGES ARE REGULATED - IF THE UCI ALLOWED FOR EXAMPLE DISC BRAKES, I AM SURE THE ISSUE WOULD COME UP ON ANY ATTACK DURING A HIGH SPEED DESCENT. )

Bacciagalupe

Yeah, that's because in terms of performance, they basically are all the same.

The sport isn't about how Machine X is so supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. It's about athletic ability, tactics, teamwork and suffering. I.e. human beings.

By the way, the riders are almost as conservative as the UCI. Disc brakes are legal for 'cross, but have not been adopted by riders across the board. (see https://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...-brakes_263893) It's a conservatism that, in at least some cases, has a good basis (e.g. https://velonews.competitor.com/2013/...ona-mud_271112). Sometimes, it's better to stick to the devil you know.

Cat4Lifer

A few weeks ago I found myself riding behind a domestic-based pro (H. Clarke). I struck up a conversation and ended up asking him a question I've always wanted to ask a pro: can he really tell the difference between brands of bikes. He paused for a quick second and said a bit sheepishly that he could. I took it to mean that while he could tell differences between different models, those difference were minute. He then said, what just about every other knowledgeable, or even somewhat knowledgeable, cycling enthusiast says: wheels make the biggest difference in performance.

byhsu

weight wise or shape (more aerodynamic)?

Cat4Lifer

Both.
And I should have said: biggest/most importantdifference/factor in performance is the engine; wheels are a distant second. =)

davidad

According to Sean Kelly the only important part of any racing bike is still the engine.

cafzali

Right. His comment may sound weird at first, but when you really get down to it, all teams ride pretty comparable equipment, just from different brands. The different brands may work hard to impress you with different test numbers and such, but in reality the same level of equipment is not that different.

ThermionicScott 

Why would a cyclist want to admit that a piece of gear won the race for them?

jbenkert111

I agree, talking to a rider about his bike would be useless, however, I think it would be interesting to model themselves after NASCAR. All the drivers say is "my DuPont Chevrolet "Trek" ran good today. Ocassionally though, A auto engineer/Crew chief will use a cutout section of race car (not mentioning the make) and explains how the mechanics of the car (bike) contributed to a breakdown, an accident, or how it helps in speed or cornering. I think this could be done and be interesting.

900aero

THis is kind of what I'm thinking of - but I disagree that riders would only endorse their bikes in brainless marketing speak. Think of how the MotoGP guys will speak to the media after a practice session. if they're off the pace, they say so. If they don't like their tyre choice, brake setup etc.....Or if the bike is great, they say so - & why. its not that hard.

Some of the questions you other guys have posed above are fair - some are nonsense. IN terms of adding technical depth to TV commentary, there is a great opportunity in my view but I guess if I can't even get the interest of an internet forum, its never going to happen.

merlinextraligh

"Cannodale makes the Best Bikes"

Mario Cippolini circa 1996. It's highly doubtful that was a true statement at time, and it's even more doubtful that Cippollini, being Italian, believed it.

In a sport that's almost completely dependent on sponsors, you expect the riders to give candid, public, assesments of their sponsor's products?

ultraman6970

The only way to know the truth is to check their personal bikes when they retired. Even some after retirement dont ride a bike no more and probably dont even own one. All the equipment is given, they cant complain at all eventhought sure they have opinions about the stuff, doubt we will hear anything of those opinions ever.

merlinextraligh

And watching Pro Races, you'll see a variety of wheel choices on any given race/stage.

I think it would be interesting on a day when some riders are using shallow rims, aluminum or CF, and others are using deep sectioned CF, to ask thing like why did you choose the 404's today instead of the 303's.

And on very mountainous stages, when a rider chooses to use a compact or a triple, that would be a subject for discussion.

But for the most part in a UCI regulated world with a 14.9lb weight limit, there just isn't much if any difference between one bike setup and the next.

Cat4Lifer

remember when a 42 was standard? christ

Gordy748

Err.... no. When Moto GP riders are criticizing or praising their set-ups or their tires, they are not blaming their Brembos, Ohlins or Pirellis on letting them down. They are blaming exactly what they are talking about; the set-up or human choice. Suspension, for example, involves a balance of spring rate, spring tension, fast and slow compression damping and fast and slow rebound damping. All those need to be dialed in just right for each track, and failure to do so is the result of human error, not product. I've never heard of any riders say "yes I won today because my Showa rear suspension rebounds so good". It's always the set-up (unless it's le Mans and they have so much more horsepower they blow past everyone on the straights).

Likewise for cyclists. At the top end, the difference between a Colnago with Campy, a Trek with Shimano and a Giant with Sram is virtually non-existent. But what you will hear quite frequently is someone like Cavendish blaming poor big ring choice for losing a sprint, or Contador bemoaning his mountain cassette gear ratios.

In both sports, it's not about the machinery as much as it is about the human element.