Rio - Track Cycling events - no spoiler tags required

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.