Quintana...'Ban Power Meters from racing'

pelevin

So you're picking an example of free uncontrolled racing which is great to watch as an argument in favour of why it should be easier to have controlled racing - as shown with Poels, Sky's best domestique in the '16 Tour, saying how they ride in this scientific manner just below threshold to reduce the variables of what can happen. Also one stage in 4 years is the example of how it's possible to blow Sky out of the water. At that kind of frequency rate it must be easy.
I saw Dan Martin try very hard on a number of occasions in ths year's Tour to attack Sky. He got reeled in without fuss every time. Apparently he must have no balls. Blow people out of the water like Landa, on his day one of the best in the world, who are not even trying to stay up in GC every day? All it takes is attitude. And maybe a load of drugs.

Why anyone would actually have an emotional response in favour of power meters baffles me. "It's the power meters for me that make racing so great for me." What the hell is the attachment about? People's pleasure is genuinely bound up in the cyclists having such tools? Even if the lack of them didn't improve things, what would be the loss anyway? It'd hardly make the spectacle worse.

terrydel

godtabh wrote: »

I disagree. Let them ride however they want. They aren't here to entertain us they are their to win. Entertaining us is down the list.

If they aren't entertaining people, then they wont be making nearly as good a living from it.

godtabh

terrydel wrote: »

If they aren't entertaining people, then they wont be making nearly as good a living from it.

Yes they will. Sponsorship will see them happy.

Thought you didnt know what a PM was?

terrydel

godtabh wrote: »

Yes they will. Sponsorship will see them happy.

Thought you didnt know what a PM was?

You don't understand how sponsorship works do you?
Check the time on my post, it was after my reply in the previous thread, first Ive seen of this thread.
Don't be such a snob and expect everyone to be reading your mind.

godtabh

terrydel wrote: »

You don't understand how sponsorship works do you?
Check the time on my post, it was after my reply in the previous thread, first Ive seen of this thread.
Don't be such a snob and expect everyone to be reading your mind.

Has my lack of smiley face upset you? I apologize.

A sponsor will back a winner. A winner is more likely to attract higher end brands or brands willing to pay more for sponsorship. A sponsor wont care if the their athlete wins like Froome or Nibali as long as they win. Froome or Nibali are just interested in winning.

Stages deal with Sky is one of the reasons there has been a take off in low cost left only power meters.

terrydel

godtabh wrote: »

Has my lack of smiley face upset you? I apologize.

A sponsor will back a winner. A winner is more likely to attract higher end brands or brands willing to pay more for sponsorship. A sponsor wont care if the their athlete wins like Froome or Nibali as long as they win. Froome or Nibali are just interested in winning.

Stages deal with Sky is one of the reasons there has been a take off in low cost left only power meters.

Sponsors pay more if people are interested and watching, if a sport is dull and boring and people lose interest/stop watching, sponsorship income drops massively.
Sponsors back winners IF they have an audience.

lennymc

pelevin wrote: »

So you're picking an example of free uncontrolled racing which is great to watch as an argument in favour of why it should be easier to have controlled racing

Nope, I'm saying banning technology as a means of competing with sky or giving exciting racing is rubbish. Quintana said 'they make you race more cautiously'. I gave an example of where a team tactic was used to counter team sky's tactics, to great effect and two of the most exciting moments in this year's tour were Froome's comedy cycling downhill (were Quintana tactically dropped the ball - something he is quite prone to) and when the world champion and yellow jersey attacked the peloton on a flat sprinters stage.

Also, yesterday's race was an example of where a power meter can contribute to a race - froome paced himself up a hill he blew on before, using power. The last few KM were quite exciting imho - the would he/wouldnt he get back on.

Just to clarify, I have no particular love for sky or any other team

Lumen

I suspect any experienced cyclist who has trained extensively with power could ride quite accurately just under threshold without needing to look at their head unit. That's certainly my own experience, maybe it's different in the cut and thrust of a pro race.

I think maybe that improvements in sports science have made the difference. People avoid mad attacks not because they have a power meter, but because human physiology is better understood.

Kaisr Sose

Let's not get carried away by banning the bike from bike races :-)

magicbastarder

what sort of computer giving feedback *would* be generally considered too much help for a cyclist? one with the route; distances and gradients programmed in, and telling the cyclist which is the best gear to select a few seconds beforehand, for example?
not that an experienced cyclist should need this, but it would generally be regarded as unfair, yeah?

Cookie_Monster

Banning the radio and clearing out a lot of the support cars would be more useful and interesting IMO, ban power meters and riders will just use heart rate data instead