Rio - Track Cycling events - no spoiler tags required

Beasty

The one they did not medal in was the one they did not qualify for - the Women's Team Sprint

After failing to qualify they were able to ditch Jess Varnish who was disruptive within the squad and maybe even holding back the likes of Katy Marchant. Without Varnish, and indeed without having to spend any time practising standing starts, the Women sprinters have really flourished

eeeee

Beasty wrote: »

After failing to qualify they were able to ditch Jess Varnish who was disruptive within the squad and maybe even holding back the likes of Katy Marchant. Without Varnish, and indeed without having to spend any time practising standing starts, the Women sprinters have really flourished

Don't know of you can say that, you don't know how disruptive or not she may or may not have been, an awful lot of riders came out and supported her.

Not sure about the lack of standing starts being the key to success. Didn't hurt Vogel or Kenny in their sprints...
Practising standing starts helps my power no end, and I'm far from a pro. I can't imagine it would rob the pros of any!

ETA even though they were dq's, Varnish and Pendleton went fastest in London and GB got gold on the match sprints there so she didn't disrupt that much when she was in the squad then!

Lusk_Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

The one they did not medal in was the one they did not qualify for - the Women's Team Sprint

After failing to qualify they were able to ditch Jess Varnish who was disruptive within the squad and maybe even holding back the likes of Katy Marchant. Without Varnish, and indeed without having to spend any time practising standing starts, the Women sprinters have really flourished

Spot the Shane Sutton fan club member ^^^

Edit: Well spotted pelevin. Wrong Sutton.

pelevin

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Spot the Chris Sutton fan club member ^^^

Shane Sutton?! For me it was the f....g gimps who were disrupting things.

Lusk_Doyle

pelevin wrote: »

Shane Sutton?! For me it was the f....g gimps who were disrupting things.

No, no. Beasty is a closet Norwich City fan!

Eamonnator

Cycling medal table so far:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/olympic-games-great-britain-well-in-front-on-cycling-medal-table/

Includes RRs and ITTs

mr spuckler

jo roswell on the bbc last night - her massive neck kept freaking me out! looked more like a weightlifter.

RobFowl

mr spuckler wrote: »

jo roswell on the bbc last night - her massive neck kept freaking me out! looked more like a weightlifter.

I quite fancy her ....

nak

mr spuckler wrote: »

jo roswell on the bbc last night - her massive neck kept freaking me out! looked more like a weightlifter.

All track riders do weightlifting as part of their training. I think she looks great.

mr spuckler

nak wrote: »

All track riders do weightlifting as part of their training. I think she looks great.

yeah i don't doubt that and normally (according to google image search anyway) she doesn't look as pumped but her neck last night looked massive.

nak

mr spuckler wrote: »

nak wrote: »

All track riders do weightlifting as part of their training. I think she looks great.

yeah i don't doubt that and normally (according to google image search anyway) she doesn't look as pumped but her neck last night looked massive.

Her appearance is her own business, nothing to do with her cycling abilities.

RobFowl

nak wrote: »

Her appearance is her own business, nothing to do with her cycling abilities.

Or her presenting skills, came across very well on TV i felt. A talented lady.

DominoDub

Angry motorists now celebrating Olympic cycling success

He said. “These men and women are showing total commitment to their sport of cycling, and years of hard training is paying off.

“We’ve won four gold medals in cycling alone. Hopefully all these Olympic medals will encourage more people to get out into the fresh air and take up the sport.”

Mr Dingle later got back in his car to drive the two miles home, and cursed as a cyclist wearing “ridiculous lycra” had the arrogance to use a public road at the same time as him.

From the UK version of "Waterford Wispers" lol

http://www.suffolkgazette.com/sport/angry-motorists-olympic-cycling/#

fryup

do those track bikes have brakes?? if not..why not?

CramCycle

fryup wrote: »

do those track bikes have brakes?? if not..why not?

Because it would be insanely dangerous.

Seve OB

fryup wrote: »

do those track bikes have brakes?? if not..why not?

They are fixies

Lusk_Doyle

fryup wrote: »

do those track bikes have brakes?? if not..why not?

Because it is against their religion to be stopped either mechanically or electrically.

kumate_champ07

Beasty wrote: »

The problem is swimming attracts much more interest from the US, where all the TV money is.

apparently 37% of their medals come from swimming, so that rules out removing any events

rtmie

Article in the guardian ( https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/17/laura-trott-jason-kenny-british-cycling-success-rio-2016) re GB track team confused me.

It quotes Laura Trott saying they have to switch back to their non Olympic kit and equipment for future competitions until next Olympics. Also quotes UK cycling coach on there preps for Rio saying "The helmets we are using here, for example, we used in 2012 but haven t used them since 2012 until now".
I know they prioritise the Olympics but why would they not reuse the kit / bikes now they have them, they were hardly loaners, and assume with their budget they won't be stuck for new bikes in 4 years. Also where were the helmets for the last 4 years? In a press? Why would they not use them in the intervening worlds?
Doesn't sound logical to me. I am not suggesting anything here BTW, just struggle to make sense of this in its own right.

Beasty

They haven't used them as they don't want anyone else to glean any more info than absolutely necessary

That's how the secret squirrel club always operated

They were actually training in some other (previously unseen) helmets a few months back (at least I'd never seen them previously) - obviously didn't make the grade

pelevin

That's where I'd prefer the strength & financial resources of national federations/state sponsorship didn't come into play - that athletes were more or less on level playing fields rather than athletes having advantages that have nothing personal to do with them before things have even begun. To me that's entering more into Formula One kind of 'sports' territory & the strength of the superpowers over any minnows rather than what's supposedly the Olympic spirit - however comical or degraded that idea might seem now.

rtmie

Beasty wrote: »

They haven't used them as they don't want anyone else to glean any more info than absolutely necessary

That's how the secret squirrel club always operated

They were actually training in some other (previously unseen) helmets a few months back (at least I'd never seen them previously) - obviously didn't make the grade

Does that mean they have some exclusivity agreement with e.g Cervelo re the bikes and also whoever makes the kit and helmets? Normally commercial exclusivity agreements would be time bound, so e.g skin suit manufacturer agrees exclusivity to GB until end if an Olympics. Otherwise seems difficult for suppliers to make commercial gain from their part of the research. Unless absolutely enormous exclusivity fees are being paid.
Also would there not be sufficient multi camera video angles of the bikes for competitors to make a reasonable model of the angles/measurements, if not the materials?

Beasty

They actually have to make all equipment available to the public to buy. They do that but at exorbitant prices

The Cervelos will definitely be marketed commercially though. It may be next year before I can get hold of one mind!

The secret squirrel reference is back to Beijing and indeed London. They deliberately try to suggest secrecy around their equipment to keep everyone else guessing.

Last time the French were whinging about the GBR wheels which were simply commercially available (and French) Mavics with the logos removed!

rtmie

So is it all mind games? I mean they have a valid explanation for their superiority, lots of money being obviously well spent.on talent identification, facilities, coaching etc allied to a supremely talented generation of riders.. That's out in the open. They don't need some story like " we got the magic helmets out of the press".
Do they need to justify their success in the Olympics , their relative lack of success in intervening worlds or create an impression to GB taxpayer that money is being well spent in secret labs?

Beasty

pelevin wrote: »

That's where I'd prefer the strength & financial resources of national federations/state sponsorship didn't come into play - that athletes were more or less on level playing fields rather than athletes having advantages that have nothing personal to do with them before things have even begun. To me that's entering more into Formula One kind of 'sports' territory & the strength of the superpowers over any minnows rather than what's supposedly the Olympic spirit - however comical or degraded that idea might seem now.

The success at the Olympics basically delivers funding from the UK lottery. Cycling and Rowing get the most because they deliver so many medals. Last time it was around £30m for a 4 year "cycle"

Same thing happens with other sports and to differing degrees with other nations. So GB invests in sport. Is that really a bad thing?

Hunterbiker

This is partly why the Gymnastic guys were chuffed at the medals they won. It will mean a funding increase to the gymnastic programme generally but those medalists destined for tokyo will also get a funding boost

pelevin

Beasty wrote: »

The success at the Olympics basically delivers funding from the UK lottery. Cycling and Rowing get the most because they deliver so many medals. Last time it was around £30m for a 4 year "cycle"

Same thing happens with other sports and to differing degrees with other nations. So GB invests in sport. Is that really a bad thing?

Of course there's a hell of alot worse things for money to be invested in than sports. I think athletes should however in the Olympics be on a level playing feild in terms of equipment. If the technological advantages are genuine, that for example a track cyclist from in these terms a backwater like Ireland is at a disadvantage simply in terms of techonology & its effects on his/her speed, that to me is an intrusion on the genuineness of the sport. And that's besides all teh other advantages in terms of coaching, science & nutrition those athletes will of course have.

I know it can become rather complex but essentially I would hope across all sports noone has a technological advantage over another athlete from a 'lesser' nation. That to me is the Olympics spirit if true: as far as possible head to head from an even starting-point. That's where sports starts to get lost in the stupid anal seriousness of it all in the modern age.

Beasty

Would just add that funding does not just help elite athletes. There's a knock-on effect, with facilities being built that everyone can benefit from, be it a new Velodrome in Derby or an indoor BMX track at Manchester

Lusk_Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

The success at the Olympics basically delivers funding from the UK lottery. Cycling and Rowing get the most because they deliver so many medals. Last time it was around £30m for a 4 year "cycle"

Same thing happens with other sports and to differing degrees with other nations. So GB invests in sport. Is that really a bad thing?

Maybe look at it from this angle:

Two athletes. One British. One from Mali (or somewhere that doesn't have a European Imperial Colonial power to be adopted by). Both have identical physical capabilities. One as the relevant portion of £30m behind him. The other doesn't and both end up racing. Only one result there and it's due to equipment amd resources only.

Beasty

T'was ever thus

However that investment and the publicity the success has gained has done wonders for the wider cycling environment in the UK

Other places make the investment perhaps in a not so beneficial way (Russian state-sponsored doping being a prime example) with little if any benefit to the underlying "community"

Would similar investment in Mali deliver similar wider benefits? I suspect not. I also think places like Mali have much bigger issues to address before throwing money at sports such as cycling.

Beasty

rtmie wrote: »

So is it all mind games?

So far as the equipment is concerned they have pretty much admitted to playing mind games in the past. Does that make a tangible difference? - don't know but if there's a chance it will why not give it a go - that's where the whole concept of marginal gains comes in - one other thing that may make a difference.

Ultimately though its down to the ability of the racers and the investment in the GBR track programme has shown major results elsewhere with the likes of Wiggins, Cavendish, Armistead and Thomas coming to the fore after starting out on the track team.

RobFowl

Beasty wrote: »

Last time the French were whinging about the GBR wheels which were simply commercially available (and French) Mavics with the logos removed!

The French were not moaning about the wheels !

CramCycle

RobFowl wrote: »

The French were not moaning about the wheels !

They commented about the brits hiding their "magic" wheels after the race, there was a clear implication by the french that there was something sketchy.

Mavic came out and said that they supplied them and there was nothing sketch, if they were playing mind games it worked as with that thinking at that level, why would you bother trying.

RobFowl

CramCycle wrote: »

They commented about the brits hiding their "magic" wheels after the race, there was a clear implication by the french that there was something sketchy.

Mavic came out and said that they supplied them and there was nothing sketch, if they were playing mind games it worked as with that thinking at that level, why would you bother trying.

I was under the impression they were alleging the Brits were up to no good.....

Beasty

Let's face it, the Olympics lost any semblance of level playing fields when it was opened up to professionals. Of course, before that you had the Eastern bloc doing whatever they thought necessary to deliver medals. At least GBR are quite open about their investment in delivering Olympic success

kumate_champ07

so the 3 spoke wheel that GB are using is not commercially available, the 'rim' is deeper than other brands, which is why its able to be used for sprinting. the extra weight of a sprinter and extra g forces during sprints coming down the banking would put alot of stress on a regular 3 spoke.

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

I was under the impression they were alleging the Brits were up to no good.....

Up to no good with their "Magvic" wheels.....

kumate_champ07

Mavic used to make a 3 spoke called '3G', Im not sure why they stopped because it was supposed to be very fast

Beasty

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

so the 3 spoke wheel that GB are using is not commercially available, the 'rim' is deeper than other brands, which is why its able to be used for sprinting. the extra weight of a sprinter and extra g forces during sprints coming down the banking would put alot of stress on a regular 3 spoke.

They have time to make them commercially available (as do Cervelo with the bikes) - suspect price may be a bit of an issue (unless that bike shop in Stockport starts selling them:pac:)

CramCycle

RobFowl wrote: »

I was under the impression they were alleging the Brits were up to no good.....

Well, yes, that's exactly what they were saying, that's where my "sketch" comment was pointing. They were implying the brits were either using illegal equipment (magnetic wheels, motor in the down tube) or doping.

If nothing else, it would be a great idea, if possible for sports like cycling to standardise the bikes (sizing being the variable). For example have one supplier get the contract for the Olympics and they must supply all of the bikes the riders use, including having the bikes available, free of charge, to every potential competing country for at least a year before. Stops richer countries gaining a mechanical advantage, means that poorer countries can focus their limited funding on other things.

It would be hugely objected too but think the public would back it, show their countries are the best when it is all stripped away to the athlete

rtmie

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Beasty wrote: »

The success at the Olympics basically delivers funding from the UK lottery. Cycling and Rowing get the most because they deliver so many medals. Last time it was around 30m for a 4 year "cycle"

Same thing happens with other sports and to differing degrees with other nations. So GB invests in sport. Is that really a bad thing?

Maybe look at it from this angle:

Two athletes. One British. One from Mali (or somewhere that doesn't have a European Imperial Colonial power to be adopted by). Both have identical physical capabilities. One as the relevant portion of 30m behind him. The other doesn't and both end up racing. Only one result there and it's due to equipment amd resources only.

I was thinking about this from another perspective while watching athletics earlier, there were a couple of GB athletes with strongly Irish diaspora sounding names. I started thinking the usual sentimental "if not for historical immigration they'd be wearing green etc etc" BS. Then I thought , if they were born here they might not have had the facilities to develop that far.
The GB track cycling growth over 4 Olympiad period shows the power of well spent investment.

Beasty

Think Team GB learnt a lot from the Aussies (who always seemed to punch above their weight) - just then took it up another notch

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

Well, yes, that's exactly what they were saying, that's where my "sketch" comment was pointing. They were implying the brits were either using illegal equipment (magnetic wheels, motor in the down tube) or doping.

If nothing else, it would be a great idea, if possible for sports like cycling to standardise the bikes (sizing being the variable). For example have one supplier get the contract for the Olympics and they must supply all of the bikes the riders use, including having the bikes available, free of charge, to every potential competing country for at least a year before. Stops richer countries gaining a mechanical advantage, means that poorer countries can focus their limited funding on other things.

It would be hugely objected too but think the public would back it, show their countries are the best when it is all stripped away to the athlete

The UCI have helped commercialise the bike industry with their "approval" system. The sponsorship the manufacturers bring helps fund wider cycling initiatives

Of course you could try and get the "commercial" genie back in the bottle, but I suspect it's never going to happen

kumate_champ07

rtmie wrote: »

I was thinking about this from another perspective while watching athletics earlier, there were a couple of GB athletes with strongly Irish diaspora sounding names. I started thinking the usual sentimental "if not for historical immigration they'd be wearing green etc etc" BS. Then I thought , if they were born here they might not have had the facilities to develop that far.
The GB track cycling growth over 4 Olympiad period shows the power of well spent investment.

Siobhan-Marie O'Connor won silver in swimming, found a video interview but both her parents had English accents. Fathers name is Sean

P_1

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

Siobhan-Marie O'Connor won silver in swimming, found a video interview but both her parents had English accents. Fathers name is Sean

In fairness seeing as most Olympic athletes would be born in the 90's the majority of diaspora athletes would be 3rd generation by now.