High Tech Tour de France

jefu writes "As you may know, the 2006 Tour de France finished yesterday with an American, Floyd Landis, the overall winner. This years Tour had a very nice live website, including frequent news postings and a flash interface that showed the gaps between the lead riders updated every couple of minutes. The site was taking up to 35,000 hits per minute. There is lots of technology involved in this race, including carbon fiber bikes, serious aerodynamic studies to improve the bikes, the helmets and even the riders. There are also bike transponders, GPS trackers , fancy radio systems to connect the riders to the team cars, online database access to race statistics, and probably lots more."

Comments

Oh.. nice..

[joshier]

Yeah, brilliant.. Tell us now!.. you know, when it's over.

Re:Oh.. nice..

[sgt_doom]

..fancy radio systems..

Could we please clean up our language a little bit here????

Re:Oh.. nice..

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron

What the fuck is this?

[walnutmon]

I got this from their online log...

17:28 - Hushovd Crashes! Hushovd has crashed in the finale. He is bleeding profusely from the right elbow and appears to be in a terrible state...
17:32 - No Crash For Hushovd Hushovd did not crash as reported earlier but he did sustain an injury in the final straight when his right elbow was caught on something held over the barriers by a spectator.

Umm... Oops?

Re:What the fuck is this?

[McWilde]

This was one of the first days of the Tour, I think. It ended, as the first week's stages usually do, in a mass sprint. The sprinters ride upwards of 60 km/h at the finish. His arm actually caught on an oversized, cardboard hand that one of the sponsors distributed. That was one nasty paper cut.
Hushovd did recover though; he won the final stage in Paris.

Re:What the fuck is this?

[Scarblac]

For one thing, look at the times. That is news created live in an extremely chaotic situation. That's how it goes, mistakes happen.

For another, he was bleeding profusely after being hit by a bit of merchandise held by a stupid spectator while cycling 60+ km/h, he was in a terrible state (needed lots of stitches), but he did not actually crash, he managed to stay on his bike. It's easy to see how that little confusion happened.

Re:What the fuck is this?

[Mike Quin]

The problem there was that the TV cameras cut to Hushovd lying on the pavement covered in blood and in clear pain, so the TV (and online) commentators assumed that he'd crashed either during or immediately after the sprint for the line.

Re:What the fuck is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've probably never seen it live and in person. It's sensory overload, there is a lot of stuff happening at any given time. Basically, you see the blur of colors and racers and then you see someone down on the deck, you don't know if he crashed, we pushed, stopped and got off his bike and layed down or what, just that he's on the deck bleeding and in pain. And it all happens very fast. Particularly in the sprint, the big dogs spin out 53x11 and can get up to ~85km/h. It's easy to make a mistake and then correct it when you know the details. That's excluding the motorcycles filming it and the support cars, guys are hit by those from time to time also.

The hill stages are more exciting for the spectators, I've watched those and you can see the guys coming, they are moving more slowly, one by one. Those kinds of mistakes don't happen there.

Re:What the fuck is this?

[Anopheles]

Actually, he got his arm sliced by a spectator's camera - the cardboard hand was just speculation.

Re:Overheard At The Starting Line..

[Aqua OS X]

This post is about as funny as Steve Martin's "The Pink Panther"

Can you do without?

[r00t]

What if you don't want all that?

What if you earn the silly yellow jacket, but you want to wear the jacket you mom made for you? Maybe you'd rather go topless?

Re:Can you do without?

[kfg]

It's a professional sporting event. Privately owned. Don't wanna play by the rules? You don't gotta play the game.

I'm not talking purely hypothetically either, it's the choice I made, although perhaps a bit easier choice for an American in the 70s. We didn't exactly have a lot of "cred" back then and things over there were not to most American's taste. For my part I'm not talking about the European culture. I loved Europe. I'm talking strictly about the bike racing culture. Those were still pretty much Prisoners of the Road days. Cycle racing was a blue collar sport, a way out of the factory job, but you were pretty much a serf to the team. Simply an employee of the sponsor.

That upstart kid Greg something or other went over there though. He managed to at least partially rewrite the rules. Go figure; and good for him. They needed a bit of rewriting. He made his team an independent business entity from the sponsor, in the American model. That changed things.

But then he didn't want to wear the jacket his mom made for him either. He wanted to wear the yellow jersey.

KFG

Re:Can you do without?

[r00t]

So then, you just put up with the yellow jacket even if it is really uncomfortable to wear?

Maybe it is scratchy or confining, too hot, or not warm enough. What if it sucks enough
to make you think you'll lose the next stage because of it?

Re:Can you do without?

[kfg]

Maybe it is scratchy . . .

Until recently they were made of wool.

. . .or confining . . .

Well, d'oh! It's a cycling jersey. Get with the program.

. . .too hot

Add water.

. . .or not warm enough

Add a piece of newspaper.

What if it sucks enough
to make you think you'll lose the next stage because of it?

Quit. None of the other riders will complain if you do this.

KFG

Re:Can you do without?

[smellsofbikes]

And Greg was building on the americans-in-europe tradition that George Mount had kicked up in '75-78, when he was racing in the Giro. I *think* he was the first American since the '30's to show up in European pro cycling.

Re:Can you do without?

[8127972]

"That upstart kid Greg something or other went over there though. He managed to at least partially rewrite the rules. Go figure; and good for him. They needed a bit of rewriting. He made his team an independent business entity from the sponsor, in the American model. That changed things."

The Greg in question was Greg Lemond:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Lemond

He's best known for:

- 2 World Championships
- 3 Tour De France Titles
- Being the first millionare in the sport
- Aerodynamic innovations including areo bars and helmets (the ones that you see everybody use now).

Re:Can you do without?

[kfg]

Ah, yes, George and his famous grimace. "Smile" is far too polite a word for it.

But Jackie Simes III was the one who really kicked it off in the late 60s. He was the one we all looked to as the first to give it a go in the post WWII era, but a track rider. Track was still huge in Europe, but nearly unheard of here though, so he never got any headlines. Silver medal in the worlds kilo in '68. Gave up the idea of a European career to try to restart pro racing in the US. He did it, but it took 20 years or so. Dave Chauner was the first American to actually win a Eurpean race, even though it was only amatuer and only in England it was a huge event for American cycling. John Allis brought the first American team overseas. Selected for the Olympic team 4 times (declined the fourth), but never turned pro. Then there was Jack Boyer, the model for Breaking Away, although Jack went "all French" instead of "all Italian." Expatriated to France, went pro in '77 and rode The Tour in '81. Mike Neel turned pro in Italy the same year Jack went pro in France.

The lead up to, and the '76 Olympic games themselves, is what really kicked started American pro cycling, more than any one rider. It showed our amatuers that they really could compete and gave them impetus to go to Europe.

But, to be honest though, it was the American amatuer women who led the way in international success, although mostly on track. Sheila Young, Sue Novara, Connie Carpenter, Miji Reoch. When the men were despairing of ever being comptetive the "girls" were kicking ass and showing us it could be done. In Europe women's cycling was culturally a kind of "Powder Puff" affair, but our women took it very seriously and showed results. I think a lot of American guys, perhaps even George, secretly held one of the women as his role model for success.

I'm a pure roadie, but to me Sue and Shiela were Gods.

KFG

Re:Can you do without?

[smellsofbikes]

I didn't know that Boyer actually made it to the Tour! That's awesome. AFAIK George didn't ride in the Tour, so Boyer is a better candidate for cracking open that door.

I wonder sometimes if women's racing in Europe was helped or harmed by Jeannie Longo's unbelievable string of victories. Sometimes it seemed like there wasn't any point to even holding the races, when you could just send the trophies directly to her and save all the hard work.

Re:Can you do without?

[kfg]

I didn't know that Boyer actually made it to the Tour!

Oh, shit yeah. Rode it five times. Finished 12th in '83, the year before LeMond's first. I'll tell ya, there was some hootin' and hollerin' around my local bike shop over that one. Unlike other Americans who "visited" Europe to ride Jack completely acculturated himself as a Frenchman; and into the French amatuer system, in '73, That made all the difference.

. . .Jeannie Longo's unbelievable string of victories.

Ahhh, Jeannie's sumpin' else; and a geek! Mathematics and computer science at Grenoble. A shame she was born into a family that supported her fully, but a nation that didn't. She was one of the first to cross the pond in the other direction to find competition. I guess I'll never fully understand the French. Rene Arnoux once complained that he was a bigger hero in France when he was coming second in an Italain car than when he was winning in a French one. Elan! The valiant loss. I'm a huge fan of the man (or woman, Seana Hogan another God, another geek. MA in Mathematics) who "puts in the effort" myself, but one can overdue that if one isn't careful.

KFG

The technology didn't stop with the bikes.

[Don_dumb]

There were some excellent advances in biochemistry and pharmaceutics if I remember correctly . . . http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycli ng/5138306.stm.

Re:The technology didn't stop with the bikes.

[mpiktas]

Yeah, that's why I ignored this year's Tour de France. It took some effort, since I check eurosport.com every day, but I was strong:) It is a pity, that doping is so deeply involved in the sport. And the coincidences, when all the doping scandals take place just before the race, during the race, or just after the race, strongly hints (at least for me) of a set up. And that means that everybody is doping, just that some unfortunate ones are told upon. Couple that with Leblanc's relentless hunt (dislike) of Armstrong and Tour de France loses its charm.

Re:The technology didn't stop with the bikes.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what?
It has been the case for a few years, and seems to have little impact on the Tour's popularity. Remember the festina case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Virenque)? This year is not worse than the years before.

I've stopped watching the Tour because of that, but most people still watch it.

Re:The technology didn't stop with the bikes.

[LotsOfPhil]

Next year there will be even more technology when Floyd Landis has his bionic hip! http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/1500182 0.htm

Re:The technology didn't stop with the bikes.

[PaneerParantha]

It is a pity, that doping is so deeply involved in the sport

If what you say is true then every or almost every cyclist is doing it, therefore it should cancel out. Shouldn't it? :) Hence what we saw was human effort even if slightly dope-enhanced.

Re:The technology didn't stop with the bikes.

[micheas]

There was a tell all book written in the late 1980's by a more or less unknown pro rider about his use of performance enhancing drugs. (I cannot remember the riders name)

The author went out of his way to not accuse Greg LeMond, Andy Hampsten, and Steve Bauer. That was his list of riders that he would not accuse of using.

LeMond went out of his way to not associate with doctors that provided performance enhancing chemicals. That cannot be said for Armstrong. I suspect a lot of the anti-Armstrong sentiment is his public statements that he is clean while associating with Dr. Michele Ferrari until it became clear that he would be suspended if he did not break off his relationship with the doctor. It is strains crediblity as much as someone named in the balco scandal in the US claiming that they never used drugs they just talked to balco about strength trainging exercises.

The ProTour needs to change the culture if they are going to go from 98% using to 98% not using drugs. The same magazines that complain about doping run ads for untested suplements that claim to enhance endurance. The other thing is that I don't ever recall LeMond denying using drugs, but being much more cirumspect about drug use and saying that riders need to have input into these things instead of being handed down from the sports governing body. (LeMond led the only rider revolt that I can recall, when the UCI mandated helmets being worn. There was a race that the riders gathered and did not roll forward. The issue was about helmets being worn on the climbs in the Tour de France.)

This is sort of off topic, but it responds to the parent post.

Americans in France!

[jkrise]

the 2006 Tour de France finished yesterday with an American , Floyd Landis, the overall winner

I wonder how Americans always keep winning in France.. these last few years. To hell with all this fancy schmancy technology carbon fiber bikes, serious aerodynamic studies to improve the bikes, the helmets ... blah blah

As Alistair McLean figured out with Vyland and Royale... Fear is the Key. Americans are plain scared in France, methinks!

Re:Americans in France!

[bloblu]

Well, one more likely explanation is that there are 300 millions americans. And you see, winning the Tour is about being a biological wonder, capable of gathering lots of oxygen fast.

As a matter of fact, it is true that we french people had a problem with Armstrong. He was seen as arrogant and unfriendly. (Actually, he thought the same of french people and didn't conceal it.) But as far as I can see, people like Landis very much. So you see, it's not antiamericanism.

Re:Americans in France!

[Anonymous Coward]

He was seen as arrogant and unfriendly. (Actually, he thought the same of french people and didn't conceal it.)

Actually, everybody thinks that of the french people. My guess is that is has something to do with living in a country which calls itself "grande nation". If you can't understand your own language when a foreigner speaks it poorly, you should be happy that they're trying and come half way, instead of scoffing at them.

Re:Americans in France!

[Free Bird]

Well, maybe this time it had something to do with Vinokourov, Ullrich, Mancebo and Basso not starting, Valverde falling early on, and his opponents not believing that he'd be able to close the gap in stage 17 so that they didn't try to pursue him until it was too late (a very costly mistake), among other things... Armstrong was simply the best but Landis could only win because of his opponents' absences and mistakes. This was his first and last Tour de France victory.

Re:Americans in France!

[EJB]

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe (and of course that hasn't been proven yet) the above four did use illegal substances. If so, they gambled and lost, and Landis made a better bet. The Tour is as much about tactics as it is about riding your bicycle very fast.

- Erwin

Re:Americans in France!

[vr]

I wonder how Americans always keep winning in France..

Zank you very much for helping with that icky nazi affair, m'sieur.

Re:Americans in France!

[stupidfoo]

And there are, what, 500-600 million Europeans? So the win rate from Europe:America should be around 2:1.

Re:Americans in France!

[bloblu]

Well, there is no bias: only 3 americans won the more than 100 years old Tour.

Re:Americans in France!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you have to really be a jerk if the French think you are arrogant and unfriendly!

Re:Americans in France!

[Don853]

To be fair, the 3 Americans won the tour 11 times. I'm too lazy to look up how many individual tour winners there have been.

Re:Americans in France!

[hey!]

What you say is true.

But it's worth noting cycling is also a team sport, and while Landis is an American, the sponsoring company is Swiss.

Otherwise I agree. Mathematically, it's foolish though to try to seek for a reason that "Americans" have one the tour all these recent years. It's really been one American: Lance Armstrong. Put somebody so dominant on a great team, and he'll win most of the time. Take Lance out of the picture, then Landis' victory, although a terrific achievement given that he is in dire need of a hip replacement, is just one data point.

Greg LeMond could have been as dominant as Armstrong, had he not been shot, which not only took him out of two tours, it also possibly ended his career early. But that's the nature of elite competition. Chance mishaps and injuries are the ultimate barrier to an athlete reaching his genetic potential for performance. There are other cyclists, perhaps who we've never heard of, who suffering injury or other setbacks never made it. The same may be true for Landis: he may never come back after his hip replacement. Or he might. But if he doesn't, his story isn't unique, it's what happens to elite athletes in a sport where a tiny edge makes all the difference.

Re:Americans in France!

[Don853]

The same was said about Armstrong after his first tour victory: He only won because his best competition was missing. Look how that turned out.

Granted, Landis is too old at this point to run off a streak that long.

Re:Americans in France!

[wilbz]

and his opponents not believing that he'd be able to close the gap in stage 17 so that they didn't try to pursue him until it was too late (a very costly mistake)

Actually, the general consensus at the end of stage 17 was that they simply couldn't keep up with him. That's part of why many pundits are making out this years stage 17 as one of the greatest achievements in modern cycling's history. Attributing it to a tactical mistake on the part of the other teams downplays what was accepted by many of the riders in the tour as a pace that no one else could come close to matching.

Re:Americans in France!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wonder how Americans always keep winning in France"

They're getting ready to take over France's spot as leader of running away.

Re:Americans in France!

[oliderid]

When I was a teenager I was (and still is) a Greg LeMond Fan. He was extremely popular (Landis seems to have the same profile).
I even supported him when he won the tour against Fignon (French).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond

Armstrong was quite different. He looked extremely arrogant in the interviews. Rumors say that he is a completly different person in private.

My all time favorites are:
- Merckx (Belgian)
- LeMond (American)
- Hinault (French)

Re:Americans in France!

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

lance had a reputation as a a-hole long before he had cancer. The people just didn't realize that everyone from texas is like that.

American technology is best

[jmcoursi]

... especially in ma(s)king forbidden substances... Greg LeMond, Lance Armstrong, Floyd Landis : 11 wins between them.

Re:American technology is best

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, way to put out libelous and unsubstantiated claims. The second Americans win something, it's because of doping?

I'm Italian, and I don't recall Americans saying that the Italy soccer team was doped through the roof when they won the World Cup.

Re:American technology is best

[walnutmon]

that's because you looked it up in a book... Next time look it up in your gut.

Re:American technology is best

[Anonymous Coward]

... especially in ma(s)king forbidden substances... Greg LeMond, Lance Armstrong, Floyd Landis : 11 wins between them.

Yes they must be doping, because they are winning... and they are American. Lance Armstrong was probably one of the most tested individuals in the world. If the technology was available, riders from other countries would also be able to mask. Just pay the right price, money trumps nationalism in America.

Re:American technology is best

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone's bitter.

If Italy won football against the americans, they must be doping up. If your favorite team loses, the winners must be doping up... What about the winning streaks you can look up in the olympics for each event? Are they doping up too?

Sometimes you just have to accept the fact you lost. That's fine.. treat it as an object lesson on determination and hit the road a little harder in your training.

If you want to get back at us for this time, give us a good run for our money next time.

- An American

Re:American technology is best

[kfg]

forbidden substances... Greg LeMond

Perhaps all the riders will be lining up for lead injections into the gut now.

Or maybe not.

KFG

Re:American technology is best

[Anonymous Coward]

Italians were too busy paying off the referees in the world cup so they didn't need to dope :p

Re:American technology is best

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been too many cases in cycling, and you have to be quite naive, or seriously uninformed, not to think that most cyclists don't use doping products.
Many people, including myself, believe that all that ALL cyclers on the Tour use doping products.

And yes, it includes Armstrong, and Miguel Indurain before.
This does not mean that Armstrong uses more doping products than the others, just that he is the best of the dopers.

Re:American technology is best

[ozmanjusri]

If Italy won football against the americans, they must be doping up.

Nah, the Italian team won by diving down.
/bitter Australian...

Re:American technology is best

[otherniceman]

They are a strong Catholic country, they are bound to go down on their knees at the first sign of a cross.

Re:American technology is best

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be because Italy had been kind enough to give the US a goal in the World Cup, bringing their total goal count to two and taking them out of the running for "worst team in the World Cup" which they otherwise would have doubtlessly qualified, having won exactly no games.

And, if you honestly think that the Americans aren't doping, you're out of your mind. Everyone dopes. Some are just better at not getting caught.

Re:American technology is best

[igb]

At least none of the three American tour winners have died from drug abuse. Now in Italy... [[ It's an unfair remark, of course. Pantani is one of the greatest tour riders of the modern era, and there's no evidence that he won while using drugs. On the other hand, his post-racing decline does have some of the signs. Sad, sad, loss. The TdF without il Pirate and Cippolini is a sadder place. ]] ian

Re:American technology is best

[quadelirus]

Its easy for someone to point fingers at people that have stood out and done outstanding things and claim cheating. Consider the facts, however. Armstrong has been tested for performance enhancing drugs more times than any athlete on the entire planet and has never once tested positive. If you've got no more beef with someone other than that they have won where winning seemed impossible it behooves you to not throw allegations around that are unfounded and unproven. Greg LeMond won because he used superior bike technology and was the best. Laurent Fignon came out with no aero-helmet on that last time trial in 1989, his pony tail flapping in the wind, with no aero bars and a classical riding position. Lemond had tri-bars on his bike, an aerodynamic helmet, and a aerodynamic riding position. Even if the two riders were roughly as strong as each other, of course LeMond won.

I wouldn't be so naive to say that there is no possibility that any of the three you mentioned were doping. But I personally, and I suspect you, have no serious evidence in my position to point empty allegations towards them.

As to Floyd, here is an interesting article on how Phonak is dealing with dopers within its team: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/17/sports/bike .php It seems that Floyd could be putting his job very much on the line within Phonak if he is doping. So until proven guilty, I'll assume innocence.

Re:American technology is best

[drsquare]

Wow, way to put out libelous and unsubstantiated claims. The second Americans win something, it's because of doping?

Just look at the major American sports leagues, NFL, MLB etc, they're all on steroids. American sportsmen and drugs go hand in hand.

I'm Italian, and I don't recall Americans saying that the Italy soccer team was doped through the roof when they won the World Cup.

Italians don't take drugs, they just bribe the ref.

Re:American technology is best

[umghhh]

Well it is US that has superior technology whether in space, military or in enhancing body performance with chemicals.
Not that I care. If professional sportsman choses to abuse their body it is their business. I do not watch these events anymore as it just got pointless.

The ideals are all gone in professional flavour of sport. These people are not an example to youngsters anymore. At least I hope ther are not.

Re:American technology is best

[TamMan2000]

That masking didn't work out to well for Tyler, did it?

Besides, the guys that got kicked this year didn't get it due to a positive test (bad masking), but rather an investigation into the doctors they were seeing...

Re:American technology is best

[tchristney]

The day before the final, Landis stood on the podium to collect the maillot jaune alongside Eddy Merckx and Bernard Hinault: 11 wins between them. Add in Merckx's 5 Giro wins and his Vuelta win, and Hinault's 3 Giro wins and 2 Vuelta wins and you have 22 Grand Tour victories. Not very convincing evidence of using forbidden substances.

It's good to be the coach

[oostevo]

I'm sure the coaches are loving all of this stuff.

In the beginning, you just had the riders out on their own wits to guide them, then they got radios and the coaches got to keep them updated, then the coaches got live TV feeds in their cars to keep themselves updated, and now apparently "it is now possible to track the position and speed of each rider in the Tour de France in real-time thanks to the EGNOS European satellite positioning system."

Being a coach sure got easier if they've got realtime tracking of all the other riders.

Re:It's good to be the coach

[gowen]

And yet T-Mobile management and CSC's Bjarne Riis still suggested it wasn't their teams' responsibility to help organise the peloton and chase down Landis on the last mountain stage. Stupid bastards.

Re:It's good to be the coach

[Pastis]

Having much more information may make it easier, but surely must make it more stressful!!

Before you had to decide of one strategy, and let your guys fulfill it. Now you potentialy have to reevaluate your strategy each time you get new information.

Re:It's good to be the coach

[MaxInBxl]

Back in the day the only things the coaches had to communicate with their cuclists were the "ardoisiers", guys on the side of track with little blackboards giving information on times / distances etc, and having a crew go up to their cycler in a bike.

Nowadays each cycler has an earpiece and can get real-time information via radiowaves (I imagine) from his coach. I can't remember who it was but one such coach even pushed this a bit farther by having scramblers in his van in order to scramble the competition's communications!

Although from what I've been told the cyclists themselves are only half / half when it comes to this new communication technology. The purists say it takes a lot of the personnal strategy out of the race.

Re:It's good to be the coach

[backdoorstudent]

In the beginning, you just had the riders out on their own wits to guide them, then they got radios and the coaches got to keep them updated, then the coaches got live TV feeds in their cars to keep themselves updated, and now apparently "it is now possible to track the position and speed of each rider in the Tour de France in real-time thanks to the EGNOS European satellite positioning system."

That's not exactly true. Even before radios the directors would follow in cars talking to the racers. Radios have just made it safer - you don't have as many agressive team cars battling for road. They haven't really been on their "own wits" since pre-war times when they frequently cheated by doing things like taking a train.

Re:Overheard At The Starting Line..

[Anonymous Coward]

they love jerry lewis, too. both of them. he can really pump that piano.

Also mechanical tech

[Max Romantschuk]

One of the more intreresting aids I've seen some riders use are PowerCranks: http://www.powercranks.com/

From the site: (http://www.powercranks.com/about/concept.htm)

PowerCranks(TM) integrates a one-way clutch in each crank-arm of your bicycle or stationary bike. This patented modification changes the cranks from being fixed to each other at 180 (as are regular cranks), to being independent from one another. Each leg can drive the bicycle but one leg cannot assist the other. Effectively, with PowerCranks(TM) the rider is doing one-legged pedaling with both legs simultaneously.

So basically, they force riders to use all leg muscles and keep them from lifting one leg with the other, wasting energy. Simple, but very effective. It's a nice concept, and I'd love to get a pair even for my commute, but being a niche product they are rather expensive...

Re:Also mechanical tech

[AGMW]

All the talk of innovation in bicycle design and yet they ban the use of recumbents. As I understand it, recumbents (or recumbants?) reduce the drag so massively decreasing the effort required to cycle (once you get the hang of balancing the contraption).

Why are there no recumb[ea]nt races eh?

Re:Also mechanical tech

[Max Romantschuk]

Actually, the "ban" on recumberents is more an issue of the nature of the sport. Basically they feel that a recumberent is not a bicycle in the traditional sense. But the wind resistance advantage is more or less nullified by the increased effort in climbing hills with recumberents. On a normal bike you can use your body weight to climb more efficiently, not so with a recumberent.

I guess there are few (there are some) races because there are rather few riders as well.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[palmersperry]

> Why are there no recumb[ea]nt races eh?

There are ... Over here in .uk they're organised by the http://bhpc.org.uk/ (British Human Power Club), I would suspect there's a USA-ian equivalent organisation.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[MichaelSmith]

On a normal bike you can use your body weight to climb more efficiently, not so with a recumberent.

Recumbents are better aerodynamically, but worse mechanically. The torque from pedals to back wheel has to be transmitted over a longer distance and the frame has to be correspondingly heavier. The longer frame makes fighting gravity harder and adds to frame mass.

Also I can imagine (but not prove) that the horizontal riding position makes it harder to make a good pedalling stroke with even torque around the stroke. The nose down and forward position is better for situational awareness. The recumbent position is better for looking at clouds (as in a sailplane).

Re:Also mechanical tech

[Anonymous Coward]

> USA-ian

The word, mate, is American. Go learn the language or something.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[YrWrstNtmr]

Why are there no recumb[ea]nt races eh?

Get thee to IHPVA.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm getting tired of this argument, each fsck time a cycling topic gets mentioned on /.
do you want to know the reason? simply because it is not the same _type_ of bike.

why are F1 cars not allowed in the WRC and, oh, why can't motorcycles and cars compete together in nascar?
those are equally silly questions!!!

Re:Also mechanical tech

[pekoe]

Looks like just a training aid - which is cool - but my guess is the additional complexity of the cranks would cause the crankset to lose stiffness and gain weight? But interesting nonetheless.

But another, lower tech and perhaps more fun way to train would be to ride fixed - without the freewheel (and with only one gear ratio) you are forced to work hard and apparently it really smooths out your cadence, which is why racers train on fixies in the winter. (I'm just getting into fixed bikes)

I'm also interested in the ovoid biopace chainrings that change mechanical advantage depending on whether the pedals are vertical or horizontal.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[Anonymous Codger]

"The nose down and forward position is better for situational awareness"

Huh? Have you ever ridden a recumbent? Situational awareness is far better - you're not staring at your front wheel all the time. I can't count the number of times I've almost been mowed down by some roadie in an aero crouch who can't see more than five feet ahead of his wheel.

As to your other points - true about the recumbent being worse mechanically. Long frames and long chainlines decrease efficiency slightly. However, there are a few FWD recumbents that solve the chainline problem nicely, and improved materials are getting high-end recumbent weights down as low as 17 pounds.

As to a good pedalling stroke, I find it easier to spin properly on my recumbent than on my upright.

Please do not take any of this as being critical of upright bikes - I enjoy both types and think both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[OO7david]

While these look interesting I don't think I'd use them. Cycling is already rather efficent pedeling-wise in that we are clipped into the pedals and can give force with each part of the stroke. The downstroke is obvious, but being clipped in we can pull up against the shoe as well.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the word is Yankee.

American refers to someone who lives in the two American continents, North America and South America.

Yankee refers to a citizen of the US.

USian is also acceptable.

American is not an acceptable term for a US citizen. Learn the language.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[CastrTroy]

I imagine that something with a fixed crank would require much different gearing than a regular bicycle. Going down big hills would be a problem because when I ride, I often have to pedal extremely fast if I want to have any effect on the speed of the bike. Also, this seems like it would be a lot of wasted effort, and you would probably have the wheel pushing your legs about as often as you would have you legs pushing the wheel. Maintaining an exact zero equilibrium would be hard. You would either end up speeding up continuously, or having your legs work against the wheel when you are slowing down.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[fnorky]

But the wind resistance advantage is more or less nullified by the increased effort in climbing hills with recumberents. On a normal bike you can use your body weight to climb more efficiently, not so with a recumberent.

Have you ever ridden a recumbent?? After the first month or so of developing the proper muscles, a recumbent is no more difficult to climb hills with than a upright. And with the proper seat adjustment, you can actually actually generate even more torque by bracing your entire body against the peddles.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[scotch]

I've seen this claim about recumbant a few times. Can you explain why, after riding for years and in numerous supported and unsupported group rides where there are many serious recumbant cyclers, I've never seen one recumbant biker climb a hill at a speed comparable to what a road biker can climb the hill? Not one time. Seriously. I've been passed by the recumbants on the flats (though truthfully, it is much rarer than one would think), but I have never ever been passed by a bent on a climb and in every case dropped the bent on the climb like it was standing still. Again, these are serious rides, centuries and longer, with many serious recumbants, some with farings and other high tech bikes.

Explain please?

Also, I've seen the claim that the recumbant is a better climber because you can generate more than your own body weight in force on the pedals. This seems logical, but in real climbs of any appreciable length, this doesn't matter - you don't generate your full weigth of force on the road bike for the sustained effort, so why would you need more?

Re:Also mechanical tech

[MBraynard]

So basically, they force riders to use all leg muscles and keep them from lifting one leg with the other, wasting energy. Simple, but very effective. It's a nice concept, and I'd love to get a pair even for my commute, but being a niche product they are rather expensive...

I'll be getting a set for _training_ but a differnet concept - rotor cranks - for racing (maybe). Nobody races with powercranks on.

If you want the benefit on the cheap, just snap out of your pedal and do one-leggeds. They are VERY HARD at first but you will notice, over time, you get better.

I usually do them in the middle of an indoor trainer class in sets - 90 seconds on each leg, alternating for 20 minutes.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[drsquare]

Huh? Have you ever ridden a recumbent? Situational awareness is far better - you're not staring at your front wheel all the time. I can't count the number of times I've almost been mowed down by some roadie in an aero crouch who can't see more than five feet ahead of his wheel.

Well, it's hard to see why recumbants haven't taken off...

Seriously, how do you see around parked cars at a junction, or cars coming up behind either side of you on one of those things?

Re:Also mechanical tech

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

Recumbents suck in the mountains.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[Anonymous Coward]

Clipless pedals accomplish roughly the same thing with proper technique. "Clipless" is a bit of a misnomer, because your shoes attach (or as riders say "clip in") to the "clipless" pedals. This allows you to utilize your muscles all the way around your pedal stroke. So when one leg is pushing on the pedals (via your quads) the other leg is pulling on the pedals (via your calves). Also at the top/bottom of the pedal stroke you push forwards and backwards on the pedals rather than relying on momentum to bring them the rest of the way around.

They are called "Clipless" pedals because their predessessors were the "toe-clips" that are basically a normal pedal with straps that strap over the riders shoe.

An example of clipless pedals (my personal favorites right now): http://www.speedplay.com/

Re:Also mechanical tech

[Anonymous Codger]

"Seriously, how do you see around parked cars at a junction, or cars coming up behind either side of you on one of those things?"

How do you see around them when you're driving a car? I'm sitting at the same height on my recumbent as I am in my Honda. You just have to be a little more alert and cautious in those circumstances.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[Moofie]

Just like they ban Formula 1 cars from the NASCAR competition, and don't let you ride a horse in a marathon.

What's the difference?

Why are there no recumbent races? Because you haven't started one. (Actually, there ARE recumbent races. Didn't you see the hour record set by Freddy Markham a few weeks ago? The guy is a MACHINE!)

Re:Also mechanical tech

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of us citizens of the United States of America are not Yankees.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[smannell]

Weight. Recumbents have longer frames, and often a single tube has to bear all the loads. This makes them considerably heavier than an upright bike. That is the main reason they are slow going up hills. Personally, after owning a recumbent, I'd never want an upright bike for travel over smooth surfaces unless I had to climb mountains. I never had much luck generating more power in a climb than my body weight like the serious bikers can accomplish. The main disadvantages I've encountered with mine is that I can't see over my shoulder behind me as easily as with an upright (the rest of the view is a little better). I'm harder to see for all the people driving automobiles, and sometimes that is frightening. Finally, since you are sitting down you can't use your body weight to "throw" the bike around like you need to for off road riding, jumping over curbs, or avoiding sudden obstacles. I've seen people pop up the front wheel of a recumbent to go over a curb, but it takes far more strength and coordination than most people have. For distance riding they are so much better than an upright, but a mountain bike with front suspension is a much better off road or urban assault vehicle.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[johnny cashed]

I read an article in some bike mag (maybe Bicycling) recently that dicussed recumbents. The article stated that with a group of cyclists, some on upright bikes and some on recumbents, that the recumbent riders would trail the upright riders on the uphills, but the upright riders would trail the recumbents on the downhills and the flats. I've never ridden a recumbent. They are pricey and I don't see too many of them. Another point the article made was that a lot more riders on recumbents fall into the FOG group (Fat Old Guy). Apparently recumbents do make cycling more accessable and fun for certain demographics. I always hear that recumbents are much more comfortable, and I'd tend to believe it, even though I have never ridden one.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[dbrower]

Nobody rides the tour with PowerCranks -- a few have tried them during training to get variety. It's probably less useful than climbing 150,000+ feet a month with a CycleOps PowerTap for recording and monitoring output, which is what Floyd really does.

-dB

Re:Also mechanical tech

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up the term in the dictionary. A Yankee is someone from the United States. That's what my dictionary says. The term Yankee has been used to refer to someone from the United States back when they were still part of the British Empire.

Re:Also mechanical tech

[hacker]

So basically, they force riders to use all leg muscles and keep them from lifting one leg with the other, wasting energy. Simple, but very effective. It's a nice concept, and I'd love to get a pair even for my commute, but being a niche product they are rather expensive...

You sir, have won my Karma for the day. This is EXACTLY the kind of tool needed to train riders in how to properly "pull up" on their pedaling strokes. I'm always finding myself explaining why the "piston" (down, down, down, down) action of most riders is completely inefficient, and I can see where Powercranks can make my OWN training even better, by really forcing me to pull up, even when I think I'm already doing it.

Re:Overheard At The Starting Line..

[zmilo]

Yeah, and yours is about as much an improvement as Hamas is to Fatah.

I love drug scandals

[walnutmon]

I just want to know why people care so much about performance enhancing drugs. I would rather see a bunch of juiced up frenchmen flying at 200 MPH on a bike, crashing at the end and exploding, taking out 1500 spectators. Seriously, I watch sports for entertainment, period.

Re:I love drug scandals

[prichardson]

I know you were joking, but here's the reason that performance enhancing drugs are banned.

When you add drugs into the equation then suddenly everyone needs them even to be competitive. Then, athletics becomes a race to see who's willing to shorten their life the most and shrink their testicles the most. That's not athleticism, it's a mass suicide.

Improving the riders

[njh]

There is lots of technology involved in this race, including carbon fiber bikes, serious aerodynamic studies to improve the bikes, the helmets and even the riders.

I'm sorry Max, but we're going to take your arm off to reduce turbulence...

Re:Improving the riders

[bytesex]

Nah. You need your arm to steer with. Your penis, on the other hand, creates a lot drag..

Furthermore - just to pre-empt:

Hey - you have your penis on your other hand ?

Re:Improving the riders

[gatzke]

Did you see that high school wrestler that had lost his legs? He could wrestle in a much lower weight class. His upper body strength was huge compared to his scrawny opponents, but he had trouble with leverage in some cases. Useless legs...

Re:Improving the riders

[njh]

Nah. You need your arm to steer with. Only one?

Re:Improving the riders

[14CharUsername]

that's why arstrong won all of those races, having only one testicle created less drag.

And

[pinky99]

don't forget to mention all the high tech chemicals and drugs on the driver side!

Re:Drugs

[kfg]

Do you know anyone who has never had a medical condition treated with drugs?

Have you ever seen anyone undergoing chemotherapy? It isn't exactly performance enhancing. Neither is arthritis so bad you're going to need a new joint, no matter what sort of drugs they give you.

KFG

specialist

[tancque]

All things considered, it is good to have a tour-winner again who is not specializing in this event and does other courses too, unlike the specialist Lance Armstrong. The fact that he only competed in the Tour took the shine off his victories. It seems fairer this way.

Re:specialist

[KokorHekkus]

All things considered, it is good to have a tour-winner again who is not specializing in this event and does other courses too, unlike the specialist Lance Armstrong. The fact that he only competed in the Tour took the shine off his victories. It seems fairer this way.

Armstrong was a truly great cyclist. But I'll agree that him being a one trick pony when it came to races places him under people like Miguel Indurain. I've talked with people who have admired his multi-win streak and when I've said "Yeah, he's good but I think Indurain was better" and have them go "Indu-who?"

For those that don't know. Indurain won 5 consecutive Tour de France races 91-95 and Giro d'Italia 92-93 (not that many double winners in the history). He also set a World Hour Record in 94.

Re:specialist

[kfg]

While the Tour de France was certainly his focus he wasn't anywhere near the "Tour Specialist" that LeMond was, who was criticised for even spending most of his training time alone in Calfornia and only showing up in Europe for the Tour season.

Lance trained with the team in Europe. He won the Tour de Luxumbourg, the Tour de Suisse, the Dauphine Libere as well as riding in, and winning stages in, a number of other events.

He was hardly a one trick pony.

No, he didn't ride all the one day classics, like Eddy, but then Eddy had to just to make living. They didn't pay squat in those days.

KFG

Re:specialist

[MobileC]

A one trick pony maybe.

But what a trick!

Impressive. But still one point to solve ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the technology use on this race is still impressive.

Example of 2005 configuration :

        * 300 peoples : journalist, cameramen, sound, directors, arangers, production teams, etc.
        * 2 Wescam helicopters : Images from the sky (landscape, monuments and peloton from the top / cool for sprints). The wescam ball is a robotized camera controled from the helicopter used since the 90s in the Tour.
        * 5 image motorbike : Inside the race, following the various groups, or team directors. They provide most of the race images.
        * 10 ground cameras : For TV show and Finish zooms.
        * 2 motos son : sound motorbike, 2 journalist are pushing live interviews of directors or live repports of race events (very usedfull in montains where lots of things can happen at the same time)
        * 2 relay planes + 2 relay helicopters : This is the hidden part of iceberg, since the 90, all the camera (wescam equiped helicopter and image motorbikes) are sending their image streams to those relays. The relays will then ensure all the streams will be received by the technical centre on the Finish city. This was the 90s revolution.

Next year, after RollandGarros in 1080p FranceTelevision (the TV group having the license on the tour) has said they will go for HD Tour :)
(This will put lot of pressure on the relay IMHO)

But even with the onflight stream complex solution, sill problems about camera discontinous stream happen (for instance in tunnels or behind bridges) ... simple problem, but still complex solutions ! Let's hope a solution will be found .... one day ;-)

My best congratulation to Floyd Landis, he was very very impresive and has the "panache" that the road spectators are looking for : bring surprise, passion and never give up !

See ya next year Floyd ;-)

(PS : spectators have never like "uber-champions" that win everything, simply because there is no surprise ... they always win and control the race from the 1sec to the last one. No passion = less interrest for viewers).

Re:Impressive. But still one point to solve ...

[clamx]

It was not 1080p but 1080i. Or more precisely, 1080/50i. I guess they'll have to convert it to 59.94i for the US.

Re:Overheard At The Starting Line..

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with Jerry Lee Lewis's music?
You hate the man because he married his cousin... who was thirteen at the time. But that doesn't change the fact that he was one of the greatest rockabilly pioneers of the 20th century. His music is great, his sexual preferences not as much.

no "ligfietsen"?

[toQDuj]

Over here we have an inventive bike called a "ligfiets", loosely translated a "lying down-bike". You basically lie on your back (with your back supported), and have much more power to push on the pedals. Additionally, the riding prosition reduces drag by a significant amount. Have these bikes been forbidden for use in the tour, or is nobody interested in using them? They go damn fast (and the steering is less prompt), so I'd have expected that to be the new "klapschaats".

Here's what they look like: http://flevobike.nl/

B.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are not allowed.
They are called "Recumbent bicycles" in English, btw.

from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle:

When the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) met in February, 1934, manufacturers of upright bicycles lobbied to have Faure's one-hour record declared invalid. On 1 April 1934, the UCI published a new definition of a racing bicycle that specified how high the bottom bracket could be above the ground, how far it could be in front of the seat and how close it could be to the front wheel. The new definition effectively banned recumbents from UCI events and guaranteed that upright bicycles would not have to compete against recumbents. For all intents and purposes, the ban is still in effect.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[hauntingthunder]

Recumbant bikes Yeh they aren't allowed - there are very strict rules set by the UCI as to what is allowed - they can make a lighter bike but there is a minimum weight so TDF bikes are not as optimised as they could be.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[morie]

its called a recliner bike in english, I think.

They are forbidden, the driving train of all bikes has to be between the axles and there is a max distance between the axles, effectively making a reclining position impossible.

Same goes for rowingbikes (http://www.rowingbike.com).

For a better overview of recliners, visit the dutch website for human powered vehicles, www.ligfiets.net.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[toQDuj]

That's bad, IMHO. It will stifle the innovation of the bicycle. That would be like not allowing faster automatic transmissions in racecars because that would make them faster... oh wait.

That would be like not allowing scientists to present using beamers and laptops because it would be unfair competing with them for those unfamiliar with beamers and laptops (for want of a better analogy).

B.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[hauntingthunder]

Well they do limit Race cars the new regs for F1 for example and even more so in the Indycar in terms of what they do the the engines etc. The weight limit for bikes is for safety I belive to stop a bike breaking up - which could be terminal on a fast descent.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[CitizenJohnJohn]

Safety is one of the reasons given for the weight limit, but it's brought into disrepute when riders are allowed to add lead weights to their frames in order to make the limit. Where's the structural improvement there? A better reason is to try and keep the bike technology sufficiently affordable that smaller teams at levels below the Tour de France can still attract bike sponsors who can afford to supply competitive bikes.

The weight thing has gotten rather out of hand. It's now easy - though hardly cheap - to build a bike that weighs about a kilogram less than the limit (6.8kg), yet even the guys who make these bikes are admitting that you need your head read if you are prepared to spend an extra $1000 saving 200g on a frame.

On the other hand, all this superlight stuff does mean that riders can add heavy but useful equipment to the bikes and remain competitive because everyone has to be over 6.8kg. When Floyd landis had a bad day at the Tour, and followed it up with the most amazing comeback since Charly gaul in 1948, his coaches were then able to get detailed physiological data on his ride from the power-measuring hub on his bike. That's valuable data. Lighter bikes means that riders now use these instruments in racing where they were previously considered too heavy and kept for training.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[Free Bird]

They're called recumbent bikes, they're not very inventive anymore, and they're disallowed by the UCI.

Also, I'm not so sure recumbent bikes are that much better apart from the aerodynamics (which is a huge advantage, obviously). Fred Rompelberg's absolute speed record was ridden on a normal (i.e. not recumbent) bike. I'm sure he would have used a recumbent bike if it was that much better, they had already been in use for a long time by then.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[dweebzilla]

More power yes, more aerodynamic yes, hills no.

Recumbents are fast, however they lack the ability to climb, especially on the steeper hills. There is incredible mechanical advantage to standing and grinding uphill on a conventional bike, there is so much more working than just legs.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[CastrTroy]

It doesn't limit the innovation of anything. Nobody is saying that you can't build a recumbent, or that you aren't allowed to experiment with new bicycle designs. All their saying is that you can't ride them in that specific race. It would be like allowing Formula 1 Cars to race against NASCAR. Or using metal bats in the major leagues. Or using an NFL football in the CFL. There's just certain thing that they limit in sports in order to make it more about the person competing, and not about severe differences in equipment.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[TigerNut]

The Power Tap hub weighs maybe an ounce (at the most two ounces) more than a standard hub... and since it's got a wireless link straight to the display computer, there's no extra drag or other downside to using it. Not much penalty for getting a fairly definitive indication of your riding performance throughout the day.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[rjstanford]

The Power Tap hub weighs maybe an ounce (at the most two ounces) more than a standard hub... and since it's got a wireless link straight to the display computer, there's no extra drag or other downside to using it. Not much penalty for getting a fairly definitive indication of your riding performance throughout the day.

For you and I, perhaps. Considering the razor-thin margins that the Tour regularly hinges around, "not much" penalty can be pretty extreme. A few seconds here, a few there, pretty soon you're talking real jerseys.

Re:no "ligfietsen"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically you are correct; however, the speed record was achieved by drafting behind a vehicle specifically designed to create a large draft for the bicycle.

All current two-wheeled non-motorized unassisted speed and distance records are held by recumbent bicycles.

Not that I'm a fan of recumbents, but I'll call a spade a spade.

Comparison...

[NexFlamma]

Personally, Id like to see a comparison of all the amazing top-of-the-line tech going into this vs that of the World Cup and, maybe the Superbowl.

Just for comparison's sake, I think that'd be rather interesting.

Re:Comparison...

[thesupraman]

There is no comparison.

Superbowl uses a few fancy camera tricks, in one stadium.
World Cup has a few stadia, and no tricks.
TDF Goes to places you would not want to drive a car, let alone 50+ production television trucks, covers several hundred kilometers of cycle racing, then moves for the next day, for a MONTH! It gives you telemetric data off 12+ riders each day, it manages 200+ riders positions in real time, and it runs through any weather conditions.

Trust me, I am in the middle of flying back from doing the OLN coverage, nothing even comes close.

Re:Comparison...

[drsquare]

I think he's talking about the equipment, rather than the TV companies. I'd say the World Cup is most complicated for TV because there are so many countries broadcasting it. They have to section off a large block of the stadium just for the commentators.

Re:Comparison...

[NexFlamma]

Oh? The gear used by professional football players (whether soccer or American football) isn't designed to exacting standards with cutting edge technology? You might want to let the boys at Nike and Adidas know that so they can all go home.

Is it really hi-tech?

[mpiktas]

Concerning live-site, I think nothing compares with tennis grand slams live scoring. You can watch shots practically live, and this really takes more effort technically, than to refresh the site every few minutes. How much is there real change in bike race, especially in flat stages? First hour, peloton is in one group, second hour, one break-away group, fifth hour, break-away group is reeled in, we gonna have a sprint finish. 10 minutes - teams are preparing for sprint, 10 seconds, the sprint has happened, the winner is such and such. That's all. I do not see what is so really ground-breaking technology-wise.

Re:Is it really hi-tech?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have watched the live TV coverage. They used GPS systems on the cameras so they could show the up to the second time gaps between different groups of riders. They could also report the current speed of the riders and exactly how much distance was left in each race.

Another cool item is the Power Tap computer which can record the exact power output of a rider. The length of time a rider is putting out a certain amount of power, the exact number of calories expended by the rider during a race. The total power output of a rider. The system can even record how much time a rider spent coasting on the downhills

AMB not free software friendly

[dasgeht]

The company that makes the bike transponders has a near-monopoly in radio control car timing systems. I wanted to write a free/open source timing software to manage our club races but the company requires developers to sign a non-disclosure agreement if they want to know the interface specs. Oh, and hello slashdot! (first post)

Re:AMB not free software friendly

[kfg]

That's why I wrote my own timing software and made my own transponders/interface. But don't tell them that, they've got patents and shit. Nevermind that the prior art goes back to the 1920s and you can find everything you need to know in Mimms' books from Radio Shack.

Doing it the easy way limits you to 8 cars per heat (using the internal counting circuit of your computer's cpu), but not many clubs race more than that anyway.

KFG

Re:AMB not free software friendly

[MichaelSmith]

Oh, and hello slashdot! (first post)

Hello yourself number 990860. I sure hope slashcode doesn't have a seven digit bug.

The Slashdot Challenge?

[nighty5]

With all this technology maybe next time we can sponsor an overweight Slashdoter slob to race?

With all these gadgets he may just finish!

google maps live tracker

[Anonymous Coward]

this was one of the nicest apps. You could track live data (such as heart beat, speed, stress points, distance, power and current position) of a few selected drivers that were connected to SRMs measuring systems that day.

Re:best cycling site

[Bazzargh]

For the tour though cyclingfans.com was essential - an eye-hurting mess of a website but it had links to all the live streams of the coverage.

Re:Drugs

[windows]

EPO is a performance enhancing substance and is banned from the Tour de France. Armstrong received EPO while he had cancer to treat some of the side-effects of chemotherapy. So, yes, technically Armstrong did receive performance enhancing drugs while undergoing treatment for cancer.

That said, anyone who thinks he was using EPO to cheat while he was undergoing chemotherapy is crazy. Prescribing EPO to patients undergoing chemotherapy isn't unusual.

Live tracking

[Anonymous Coward]

A cool network link allowed to follow the race in real time in Google Earth : http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/07/to ur_de_france_3.html
Was just great when watching live!

A few years?

[Per Abrahamsen]

Doping has been part of the game for as long as Tour de France has existed. The game doesn't gat any less exiting for that reason, doping isn't magic potions that turn ordinary humans into superhumans.

The hypocracy is anoying though, and it is annoying when some of the pre-race favorites gets excluded because they are unlucky enough to get caught, but that risk is part of the game, like the risk of being involved in a bad crash before the start.

Re:A few years?

[Don_dumb]

doping isn't magic potions that turn ordinary humans into superhumans

Perhaps, but as Landis has just failed a test - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycli ng/5221122.stm, it would seem that it doesn't need to make one a superhuman, just a little bit better.
Although of course if every competitor fails a test, then perhaps it just prevented him becoming a little worse.

I dont mean to gloat, but I think that this kind of proves my gp point.

Re:Overheard At The Starting Line..

[Anonymous Coward]

Clarification of obscure reference : http://albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php

Re:Americans in France, but not in America

[WebHostingGuy]

While an American keeps winning The Tour de France, Europeans have been winning the Ironman race in Kona lately (www.ironman.com). So, I guess it's just that everyone does better outside their own country. Probably just showing off...

Google Earth

[thelamecamel]

They also had maps of all the stages, with all the checkpoints, sprints, etc, available through Google Earth. You'd download the file, and suddenly a bunch of blue lines would appear on the pictures of France. As usual, you could then tilt the view, and the contours of the mountains would appear, i.e. mountains would rise either side of the blue line that people would be cycling down. You can then almost pretend you're flying down the valley along the course! Very nifty.

Re:Google Earth

[KingRoo]

Better was the real-time mashup of race positions on top of Google Earth, where you could follow the live race - leads, chases, peloton - as they moved through through the mountains. Fantastic for those of us at work.

Now, if they only had hires imagery in the Alps ;)

Don't forget

[PopeRatzo]

What about all the high-tech, performance enhancing drugs the spectators are using? Nothing like watching the Tour high on Human Growth Hormone.

So can the...

[SnakeEater251]

...high-tech tubes used on the bikes be modified in some way to make my Internets go faster?

High Tech Tour de France '06

[DavidV]

This story title appears every year by my memory.

Link to high tech version

[Zach978]

You can find the high tech version here, it's much more interesting.

I know what this is;

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Wikipedia.

That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[Jerk City Troll]

I love Le Tour, but the spectators are fucking retards. I remember watching a video (cannot find it now) where Lance was coming through the home stretch and the crowd was parting as he approached, not more than a meter in front of him. (Then getting in the way of other riders, causing them to have to slow or swerve.) Imagine biking as fast as you can through a dense crowd of dense people, just hoping that nobody trips or does something else stupid. And for those not in the know, brakes on road bikes are not what you expect. Almost exactly the opposite of mountain bike brakes, they are not intended to stop you, just trim your speed. If you face an obstacle your only real option is to go around it. Also, you never just stop flat-out in a pack unless you want to become a third wheel for the guys behind you.

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[stupidfoo]

And what's with all the naked guys along the course? WTF... I don't want to see that.

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[Anonymous Coward]

just think about all the major and minor disasters with spectators and the Le Mans....

People just can't get out of their own way when it comes to wanting a piece of a sporting event. It will get worse in the Tour de France, as well as other cycle races, until set courses with designated spectator areas and protection are in place.

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

They aren't retards, they're drunk. Imagine traveling hours to see the peloton rush by, 30 second and they are gone. What else is there to do? Drink of course!

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[-cman-]

It is true that the spectators have caused their share of crashes. The crowds on the slopes of the mountain stages are just ridiculous. In towns, they are usually kept behind barriers. Hushvod got cut jockeying for position in a mass sprint in a town.

But you are wrong about the brakes. At anything like reasonable speeds, say below 40mph I can lock up the tires just fine in my 2004 Raleigh Grand Prix road bike with a good, hard squeeze. I'd skid out of control and take about half the life out of my $30 tires if I did so though. But stopping in an emergency is not a problem. The problem is that at 25+ mph/40+ kph and in very close (elbow-to-elbow) proximity to other riders and spectators there isn't really time to react. One second you're riding along, then bang! ass over tits onto the pavement. Been there, done that.

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[smellsofbikes]

I take a little issue with some of the things you're saying (but not much.)
There have always been massive, massive crowds showing up at the Tour. When the US Postal Office was trying to decide whether to sponsor a team, their research indicated more people go to a single day of the Tour than the total number of people who watch one or more NFL games (or AFL games, but not quite enough to say "more than watch football".) So it's pretty crowded. And for some reason, that whole filling-the-course behavior seems to be endemic. If you watch old '70's movies of rally racing, where they were driving in 600 horsepower cars, you saw the same exact behavior: drivers doing full-speed down a road into a crowd, trusting that they'd move.
There have been Tours where angry fans have blocked, hit, pushed over, and in some cases gotten in fights with racers. Racers have accidentally collided with spectators. Spectators routinely throw things at the racers -- mostly flower petals or spray from water, but sometimes cans, bottles, and rocks.

Now the issues. Road bike brakes are stronger than they need to be, by which I mean at any point you can lock the front wheel (and go over the handlebars.) If you can brake hard enough to lock the front wheel, more braking power is useless. And, when you're racing in a pack, unless you're on a fairly steep downhill you do not use the brakes because people behind you will plough into you. You back off on pedalling, and if that's not enough you sit up to increase your wind resistance. Other riders will kick your ass if you start hitting the brakes in a pack. By which I mean you'll find yourself shoved into a curb and out of the race. First they yell at someone for doing something stupid like that, and if the person does it again everyone clears out from behind that racer and then something happens and suddenly the racer's down, skidding on pavement. They don't take kindly to misbehavior in the pack because it's their collarbones that are gonna get broken if someone gets squirrely.

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[oostevo]

But you are wrong about the brakes. At anything like reasonable speeds, say below 40mph I can lock up the tires just fine in my 2004 Raleigh Grand Prix road bike with a good, hard squeeze. I'd skid out of control and take about half the life out of my $30 tires if I did so though. But stopping in an emergency is not a problem.

I'd guess that he's probably right.

If I'm right, your bike has rims branded as "Equation" that are made from alloy.

A good number of the competitors in the Tour are using carbon rimmed wheels, which are totally different than the alloy you'd normally ride on. Carbon, in case you've not experienced wheels made from it, is an enormously bad braking surface - there's horrid heat transfer problems, it seems like there's hardly any friction at all, and there tend to be rigidity problems. In fact, a company called Lightweight famously made a carbon wheel a few years ago that could only be used on entirely uphill stages because of the problems with heat transfer and rigidity.

At the point of the cutting edge wheel tech these guys are using in the Tour, I'd say it's a safe bet to say that braking wouldn't always be as effective as the Raleigh.

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[justasecond]

Carbon, in case you've not experienced wheels made from it, is an enormously bad braking surface - there's horrid heat transfer problems

Huh. When I was road racing cars several years back carbon fiber brake pads were *the thing* to have. Made stopping the car from 100+mph a somewhat tricky proposition, as the wheels would typically instantly lock, leaving the car in a high-speed skid. (I wasn't good enough to control such grabby brakes and wound up downgrading to Kevlar.) Far as I know, though, most high-performance racing uses carbon fiber as the brake compound, so...could you 'splain why the carbon bike wheels don't have the same characteristics?

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[oostevo]

I'm not a materials engineer, unfortunately, so I can only answer with the perspective of someone who has raced on them rather than someone who has a truly deep understanding of how they work.

The first thing you notice upon clamping a set of carbon wheels on the bike is that the brake levers are generally useful for making an absolutely horrendous noise, and less so for actually slowing down. As I've gone through sponsors and bike shops and racing seasons, I've tried three brands of carbons and a bunch of different combinations of brake pads, and they've all had the characteristics of braking very badly, punctuated by sheer terror for the brief moments when the pads grab really, really well, and then they go back to braking very badly. And don't get me started about how they handle when it's even mildly wet out ...

As for the heat transfer issue, here's an excerpt from a letter (http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/9143 .0.html) from a very well known mechanic named Lennard Zinn

Carbon is an insulator, whereas aluminum (or steel) is a conductor. Thus, an aluminum rim is working to get rid of heat, thus taking heat away from the brake pads. On the other hand, a carbon rim is trying to hold heat, thus retaining heat in the brake pads. Furthermore, carbon rims, being generally lighter than metal rims, have less thermal mass to transfer heat to than a heavier rim would.

And here's the reasoning from Lightweight about why their wheel only worked uphill:

The "L'Alpe d'Huez" wheelset has been developed specifically for the demands of uphill time trials. To achieve the least possible rotary mass, the rim's brake surfaces have been lightened. Thus, the brakes must be used sparingly and not with brute force. Only use these wheels in flat or uphill sections. They are not designed for the braking forces encountered when riding downhill. We offer other wheels for these purposes.
When this is taken into account, you will find that the "L'Alpe d'Huez" wheelset is very robust and reliable and meets the highest demands.

P.S.
I thought the big deal with carbon brakes on racing cars was that they resisted heat-related brake fade really well, not that they necessarily stopped the best. Maybe I'm wrong.

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[justasecond]

IIRC, heat-related brake fade is generally due to outgassing of the binder material. The gas builds up between the pad and the rotor, eventually making it impossible for said-pad to push against said-rotor.

This article seems to point to a reason why carbon fiber's useless in bike applications: Optimal braking occurs at temperatures above 650C! You probably can't get those kinds of temperatures on a bike.

As an aside, the high operating temperatures are also difficult to hit in a race car in the first few race laps. Road race parade laps (the lap done before the racers receive the green flag) may seem like boring affairs if you're spectating, but if you're a driver, you're busy alternating your time between trying to get your tires up to temperatures (by swerving from side-to-side) and trying to get the brakes heated up (by dragging on the brake pedal). If you don't hit your target temps. on either tires or brakes before the green flag drops you're in for a fun surprise come the first corner!

Hmmm...My wife's a mechanical engineer with a thermal specialty, so maybe I can get some additional insight from her this evening.

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[Jerk City Troll]

Wow, so a lot of replies and a whole lot of condescending with a dash of missing the point. Before I start, I apologize for being so acidic. First, I am not claiming that Lance somehow started or caused the crowd congestion at the race. I just stated I saw a video, with him, riding through a dense crowd to exemplify the situation. Second, at the risk of committing an argumentive fallacy, I will say that I race, I am sponsored, I ride a really expensive bike in a pack of expensive bikes on a daily basis. I also used to ride mountain bikes regularly. That out of the way, as some of the more astute posters have already commented, road bike brakes are not designed to bring you to a complete stop from high speeds (especially when certain “exotic” materials are used in your wheel rim construction). Period, end of story. There is no debate. To get condescending for a moment, you proud owners of bikes equipped with Sora component groups may experience something different because the weekend rider expects his or her bike to stop on a dime (lock the wheels like your old Huffy coaster brakes used to). When you ride in a pack, you find that locking your wheels, making them into skis, and sliding towards the outside as you turn your $100 tires set into “hotdogs” is a lousy experience. Oh, and then you wreck because you were eratic.

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[floodo1]

carbon brake rotors are used to reduce mass. primarily. not only do they significantly reduce unsprung weight but also rotating mass.

Re:That is one thing that bugs me about Le Tour.

[Jeff-]

$100 tires? How about $160 dugasts. ;-)

To get condescending for a minute, you're full of it.

I've ridden campy centaur to record, and shimano sora to ultegra, zero gravity and ax lightness too. With rubber pads on alu rims each of these could lock a wheel. You can't come to a complete stop from high speeds because your center of gravity isn't low enough to keep you from flipping over not because your brakes aren't strong enough. If anything brakes tend to be weaker when they are cheaper because the arms flex more due to cheaper construction. Try to flex a pair of ZG or m5 arms, it's not going to happen.

The story is a little different with carbon rims. I find the brake pads designed for carbon vary significantly. I personally won't ride cork because sometimes rain happens. Coolstop pads I find last the longest but have the weakest stopping power. Swissstop may not be as durable but they stop almost as well as rubber on alu.

They don't make road race bikes with weak brakes to make the pack safer. That's a matter of good bike handling like holding your line. Track bikes do make the brakes weaker by removing them all together and forcing you to resist the motion of the pedals, which is possible because they are fixed gears with no freewheel.

Sing along now!

[Yvanhoe]

(to the Weird Al's tune or Manson's one, whatever)

We are stars now!
In the dope show!
We are stars now!
In the dope show!

recumbent good for looking at clouds.

[murple]

The recumbent position is better for looking at clouds (as in a sailplane).

I'm riding a recumbent every day to work and I have no problem with situational awareness.
Only very close potholes can't be seen very well.
But the position is much more back friendly.

Re:recumbent good for looking at clouds.

[CastrTroy]

So, if a car is travelling along beside you on the left (assuming you are on the right side of the road), then how good is the driver's situational awareness about you? How much can you actually see what's going on. I ride my regular bike to work, and I feel like having the extra height even above most cars really helps to let me see what all the crazy drivers are doing. I can't imagine seeing much, or having the drivers notice me if I was on a recumbent bicycle.

Re:recumbent good for looking at clouds.

[murple]

This is usually the first objection people have. After 4 years and 25.000km mostly in a city I don't think this is a big city.
Granted your head is lower, but it is about the same height as of the driver of a car. So this is not that low.
Also riding a normal bike before I already learned to think for the car drivers.

Re:recumbent good for looking at clouds.

[CastrTroy]

I guess it depends on the type of recumbent you have. Most that i've seen place your head (which is the highest thing on the bike) at about the same level as the bottom of the window of a typical sedan. Way below where the driver of an SUV or other truck would be able to see you. You still can't see beyond the cars if they happen to get in your way, and many cars won't notice you. I realize that even when you are riding a normal bike they often don't see you, but I think a regular bike gives you a much better chance.

Wikipedia and fixing mistakes.

[Jerk City Troll]

Why is it that people think correcting mistakes is somehow a bad thing?

Re:Wikipedia and fixing mistakes.

[Anonymous Coward]

When, in the race to be first, you never bother to care whether the first information is right anyways.

Re:Wikipedia and fixing mistakes.

[Jerk City Troll]

It is not just about information, but about anything. This is called “capitalism” and it amounts to producing a whole lot as fast as possible then fixing mistakes over time.

Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technology

[Digital_Quartz]

I'm sorry, but Tour-de-France is the anti-technology race. Wired had a photo gallery listing many technologies that are banned from the tour:

http://blog.wired.com/tourtechnology/

Any bicycle which is too light, or which has excessively good aerodynamics is outright banned. There is very little exciting aerodynamics research going on for Tour-de-France. Recumbents were banned by the Union Cycliste International way back in the 30s because they were way too fast. Every bicycle speed record currently held was taken with a recumbent.

UCI basically felt that racing should be a test of the rider rather that of the technology, and so made the diamond frame the "standard". Since everyone else saw people winning races on diamond frame bikes, these bicycles were much more popular than many other technologically superior bikes, which is pretty much why recumbents are hard to find and overly expensive today.

Even this nearly traditional looking Softride pivotless suspension bike (http://www.bronesbikeshop.com/Softride.jpg) was banned because it "could have an aerodynamic advantage".

Leader Helmet Cam

[digitaldc]

A streaming helmet cam of the leader of the race would be cool.

Re:Leader Helmet Cam

[kegon]

In fact helmet cams were worn by at least some riders.

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[backdoorstudent]

Thank you for pointing this out. The coverage of this sport is also very low tech compared to other sports. You get noisy glitchy low definition video feeds from motorbikes and bad editing where the commentators are talking about one thing and the tv is showing something else. Compare this to NFL or NBA HDTV coverage for example.

Team Discovery:

[uradu]

> AMD went to work right away to support our common goal - winning the Tour de France.

I'm glad that worked out so well for Team Discovery, especially without Amstrong.

Re:Team Discovery:

[Anonymous Coward]

At first, I thought "Ah yes, the first post reply whore". Then I realized, being such a new user, that you don't understand how to reply to the story. You obviously were not trying to get a "closer to the top" post, increasing your chances at a up-mod. Clearly, you just need some remedial posting training. Maybe after you have been here a few more years, you will have mastered posting on Slashdot.

Re:Team Discovery:

[pedalman]

I'm glad that worked out so well for Team Discovery, especially without Amstrong.

I suppose that since another American has won, one could say that we have taunted them a second time.

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[igb]

Formula 1's rules include several things at least as anti-technology as the UCI weight limit and recumbent ban (that Wired article is a lot of repetition, but a good advert for Cannondale, Giant et al). But people don't insist that the cars they buy retail have open wheels, even though that's a massive aero penalty and an artifical rule. More interesting in cycling are some of the silly minor rules, such as the tri-bar angle squabble that caught Landis out on the first c-l-m this year.

ian

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[thesandbender]

There are several reasons for the technical limitations:

1. Safety reasons... it just recently became possible to build a _safe_ bike under UCI weight limits. Prior to that people were using bikes of questionable structural integrity and even drilling holes in important components to shave weight (e.g. stems, cranks, etc.) Very, very nasty wrecks ensue when your bike fails on you.

2. To level the playing field a bit. There are mega teams like Discovery, T-Mobile, etc. that can afford to throw money at a problem. There are smaller teams that can't. By imposing some limits on the technology it allows these smaller teams to compete.

3. In Europe, cycling is very much a blue collar sport of the people and UCI felt it was important to get the teams riding bikes people can actually buy. Over the past decade most of the teams have gone from custom bikes to off the shelf bikes with the really hi-tech bits reserved for time trials and mountain stages. You can go buy the Trek that most of the Discovery riders use at your local Trek dealer.

Drugs aside, I can throw on my old school Postal kit, jump on my Trek OCLV and pretend for a moment that I'm chasing down Floyd and that is part of the allure of the sport for most fans. You just don't get that with Football, NASCAR, etc. (Although I think it does translate well to baseball and soccer, which probably explains the popularity of the sports).

Finally, for the post underneath this complaining about the quality of the coverage... stadiums are built with TV coverage in mind, they have broadcast booths and hardpoints for the cameras with all the wiring already run. Cycling coverage is done over a 150+ course, at 25+ mph and they can't prep the city because they move to different citites each day. The technology behind it is pretty cool and covering stadium sports is childs play compared to what they're doing.

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[grommit]

Every bicycle speed record currently held was taken with a recumbent.

You forgot to mention that the speed records that you mention are limited to mostly flat land, or in the words of the IHPVA, "one of the straightest, flattest, and smoothest surfaces in the world."

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[MBraynard]

If you want to bike competitivly and leverage technology, you need to learn to swim and run, too, because it's traithlon (USAT) that lets you do pretty much anything.

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[Jinker]

If they went to an open format, tech wise, you'd see a couple things happen.

1) Aero recumbents would dominate. Not only would the playing field no longer be as level, from an equipment standpoint, but the benefits of drafting, and riding in a pack would be diminished or even eliminated. This would remove the entire 'rolling chessgame' aspect of the Tour, turning it into a giant series of individual time trials.

2) Riders already go fast enough on descents, they're hitting over 100 kilometers per hour coasting down some of the hills. If they were hitting 150 or more on those descents it would be even more insanely dangerous.

3) As it stands, the cream of the crop racing bikes are attainable for mere mortals. I can go out and buy a Trek Madone 5.9 SL and 'be like Lance' for around $4k USD. I can go out and buy a BMC Pro Machine like Landis rides for around double that. How much does Michael Schumacher's car cost? (Millions) How much does a racing level rowing shell cost? (around $6k for the shell alone) What would these bikes end up costing if they became extreme, one-off, aerodynamically faired bullets?

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wired piece looks like an ad from a few bike manufacturers. Wired is such a POS. There are fewer ads in my "gold clipper" circular that I get in my mail for free. If you count product placement, I believe Wired is 110% advertising content.

Any rules that limit technology in the Tour will always seem pretty arbitrary. (like weight limits and
frame geometry limits). That hardly makes the sport, or the Tour "anti-technology". If any technology were permitted, I think you'd end up with basically what's there now. You wouldn't have a socks&sandals geek-fest HPV event.

Bike racing at the pro level, even at the amateur level, is pretty hard on equipment and riders, and the range of weather and course conditions is extreme. Things that are optimal over a smaller range of conditions (like a recumbant) might be miserable when removed from their element. Recumbant bikes in a pack of 180 riders shoulder to shoulder? Over cobblestone roads that are goat cart wide? Going back to the team car to get drinks? In a bunch sprint, twitching across the road like Robbie McEwen? That's hard to imagine.

The disciplines of the sport are pretty much tied to the road bike geometry.

As for weight, that's a totally arbitrary rule. Materials improve year over year, so hopefully they'll adjust the rule to match.

The road bike is a highly evolved technology. There are few products out there that an average person can get his or her hands on that have had their technology DNA refined for so long. Road bikes are generally at the edge of materials technology and techniques. Compare that to automobiles which are so freaking overbuilt, heavy, and use antique materials like steel.

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[CheeseTroll]

A recumbent wouldn't be much of an advantage in the mountain stages, but would be very interesting on the relatively flat time trials.

tourDeGoatse

[kylepike]

139 comments and nobody mentioned how the TDF site looks like it was inspired by Goatse?

the site has barely changed since '99 or so

[avi33]

I think it was IBM that made a big deal about putting together the site and it's "cutting edge" live text updates. Here we are 7 years later with...live text updates. The only thing that's changed is the flash doodad that shows the time gaps between the lead/chase groups, peloton, and gruppettos, and they don't tell you who's where, save for the specialty jerseys. If there's a GPS unit on each bike, it shouldn't be difficult to add that to the feed, maybe on mouseover to keep it clean, and lay the whole thing on a google earth map. Actually there's LESS technology now. At least back then you could get streaming audio of Phil and Paul, and a few video clips from the day before. Now you can't get a live audio feed anywhere, and video, fuggedaboutit. At least the World Cup was on TVUplayer.

While we're on the subject, back before Lance made the Tour worthy of more than a 1 hour weekly recap on a broadcast Network, the best you could hope for was to hear Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen call each stage live. They knew that like the "old days" most people could only get their live tour fix over the radio, and their commentary spoke volumes about the history of the tour and the day-to-day tactics. IMO they are "Hors Categorie" in the small field of bike racing announcers. Do they repeat themselves and employ a few hackneyed clichés? Of course, but talking for up to five hours a day on any subject would drive most announcers to far worse.

Like the knuckleheads Al Trautwig and Bob Roll. Maybe the American audience needs a baritone voiceover and a goofball sidekick to kick off the day, but their "expanded coverage" at the end of the day, evenhaving the benefit of knowing the outcome and setting up a little drama, cropped out the best part of the coverage by removing the sophisticated and insightful announcers and replacing them with frick and frack. Here's an example:

Al: It's got to be really hot out there. How much water do they have to drink on a day like this?
Bob: They've got to drink enough water to drown a catfish. The air is hot, the bikes are hot, but the ground is scorchingly warmified.
Al: As exciting as this is, does it hold a candle to the time that Lance charged up Alp d'Huez and slapped Jan Ullrich's mother?
Bob: Of course not. After the 2001 season, they actually added a rule to the Tour Day Fraaantz rulebook about making the runner up shine Lance's shoes to prevent that from happening again.

Seriously, they have all day to put together voiceovers for the day's events, and they prattle on, slightly more interesting than dead air. That would be like a morning news announcer covering an accident scene, and the evening anchor sitting around looking at footage, saying "wow, that accident sure looks bad. I bet somebody got hurt."

Ok, enough ranting. Only 9 more months until the Spring Classics.

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[ezzewezza]

Apparently the "many technologies" that are banned are:

1) bikes that are too light
2) bikes that are too light
3) bikes that are too light
4) bikes that are too light
5) bikes that are too light
6) bikes that might have a significant aerodynamic advantage
7) recumbent bikes
8) recumbent bikes

This year's Tour site...

[rickb928]

Looked EXACTLY THE SAME AS LAST YEARS SITE.

EXACTLY. Except for the names of riders, of course.

And it was excellent last year, too.

Now to endure the carping from so many riders and teams about Floyd's 'bionic hip' next year. Sure, it really upped your grandmother's game, getting a hip transplant, didn't it?

-rick

Now I understand.

[r00t]

>> Maybe it is scratchy . . .

> Until recently they were made of wool.

Ow! I get it now. This is the punishment jacket. You have to wear it if you go too fast. It keeps the race close, because nobody can stand to wear wool.

More Like Tour de Goatse

[kid_icarus75]

I don't know about you, but the tour homepage http://www.letour.fr/ looks a little too much like goatse for my comfort.

Re:Overheard At The Starting Line..

[tehcyder]

This post is about as funny as Steve Martin's "The Pink Panther".

If you construct a scale of funniness from 1=not even slightly funny to 100=perfectly hilarious, Steve Martin's "The Pink Panther" would have a minus score.

Go Floyd!

[CoughDropAddict]

For people who don't have the background on this: Floyd Landis raced on Lance Armstrong's team while Lance was still racing. In one of Lance's books, he tells a great story about Floyd Landis -- I don't remember all the details, but it went something like this.

Floyd was training for the Tour with Lance's team, but not really pulling his weight. He was unmotivated, or not taking it seriously -- something like that (like I said, my memory is sketchy). Anyway, Lance pulled him aside and basically said "WTF?" He took Floyd to go training with him that day -- Lance had been training away from most of the team, doing high-altitude climbs, pushing himself harder than everyone else. He took Floyd with him and made him do the same climbs, and basically whipped him into shape, and after that Floyd became one of his team's most solid members.

I think it's pretty awesome that he went on to win the Tour.

(If anyone knows this story better than me, please fill in!)

dynometers of human power

[peter303]

One of the more fantastic tools are the wattage graphs of human power output during the race. A human adult at rest outputs about a half watt per pound. Thats why they need to crank up air conditioning in auditoriums with the equivalent of an incandescent light in each chair. A trained athlete can sustain 200 watts for hours and peak twice that for minutes bursts.

Re:dynometers of human power

[gnuman99]

In Tour, peak for sprinters is about 1800W (for sprints). Lance apparantly has a max power at VO2max of 600W, but more for sprints (non-oxygen). That is the power he can sustain for some time. Resting HR: 32bpm but average for the tour was something in the 56 or so.

source: http://lancearmstrong.com/

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[rhizome]

If you want to bike competitivly and leverage technology, you need to learn to swim and run, too, because it's traithlon (USAT) that lets you do pretty much anything.

Except ride in a pack and draft other racers.

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[MBraynard]

Because that's goddamn cheating. You gotta stand on your own. What an assinine criticism. Die in a fire. Please.

Re:I Wish

[mpapet]

it was partially true but it's not.

Performance enhancing drugs have a long history in all kinds of sport. Cycling's history of abuse is at least as old as the sport.

As much as sport organizations may not legitimately want the drugs in their sport, they start by making sure no one kills themselves with abuse first.

Some years ago 20yr old semi-pro cyclists were dying of heart attacks because of too much EPO and probably a few other things... The UCI's solution was to set a red blood cell count limit. Now most pro cyclists are close to that limit, which is way beyond a non-doping cyclist.

The goal then, is for pro or semi-pro athletes to stop a sport and lead productive lives as citizens. The Gov. of California is a well-known example. No one gets to be Mr. Olympia (or whatever) on training alone.

Today's lesson: Doping is okay in any sport. Just don't be stupid about it and don't kill yourself. Staying clean gets you nothing but peace of mind and a low-range pro athletes salary. That's a high price to pay for sticking to convictions.

The Devil

[TeatimeofSoul]

Did anyone else notice that Didi Senft seemed to get censored by the producers. I could see the pitch-fork paintings on the road, but not the guy himself. Except on one occasion, where he was onscreen for half a second, before the camera moved slightly to the side.

Maybe he isn't high-tech enough?

crazy, maybe, but not psycho

[beaverfever]

"Lance was coming through the home stretch and the crowd was parting as he approached, not more than a meter in front of him."

The crowds on the mountains have always done that, since long before Lance knew how to ride a bicycle. As with most things in cycling, enthusiastic spectators are not a Lance creation. If you think that is crazy, you should see crowds do the exact same thing at rally races - that's with cars, not bicycles.

When the tv video is shot from behind a rider from a motorcycle, the foreshortening effect of the video camera lens can make the spectators in front of the cyclist appear much closer than they really are. The same effect is very pronounced on sprint finishes, when head-on images can make the race seem like a matter of centimeters, when really the riders are meters apart.

While drunken fans can be an annoyance, the biggest danger from fans is people using cameras - the camera lens can screw up their depth perception, they don't concentrate on what's happening around them, and straps and cords dangle causing hazards that handlebars can snag; all of these have led to high-profile crashes in bike races.

Technology they still have trouble with

[beaverfever]

Considering all the technological gee-whizzery that goes into all aspects of bike racing, and all the years that bike racing has been televised live, I'm hoping that soon we'll see a drastic improvement in signal quality from the motorcycle-video feeds. It is still very prone to garbled images and interruptions.

Re:Americans in France, but not in America

[sponglish]

Yeah, but the US has never lost the World Series. Ever. Must be some kind of miracle!

Re: the tour commentators

[Spoke]

I have to admit that while I especially didn't like Bob Roll at first, he's grown on me. He sure is goofy and fun to make fun of. "Tour Day FrAnce!" LOL! He absolutely butchers it every time!

That said, Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwin are definitely great commentators and I wouldn't want anyone else commenting during the sages.

your last point is, sadly, wrong.

[Corf]

(PS : spectators have never like "uber-champions" that win everything, simply because there is no surprise ... they always win and control the race from the 1sec to the last one. No passion = less interrest for viewers).

Domestic to the States, OLN viewership was down 52%. In Germany, after Ullrich got das boot (har har), ratings were down 43%. Even in France there were 23% fewer people watching on TV. (Source: http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=421 4)

Personally, I'm psyched that it was wide open - the drama was a blast, and last Thursday when Landis cranked the dial to eleven was a beautiful thing to watch... but if the majority of Murrikins can't watch Texas-boy dominate again, they'd rather watch something else. :(

Ever heard of the Toronto Blue Jays?

[ipfwadm]

Yeah, but the US has never lost the World Series. Ever. Must be some kind of miracle!

Missed the World Series in 1992 and 1993, eh?

Re:Ever heard of the Toronto Blue Jays?

[sponglish]

Good point! I keep forgetting that Canada isn't the 51st state.

Eddy Merckx

[TamMan2000]

Big Mig was no Eddy Merckx...

Eddy won the Tour 5 time, the Giro 5 times, and the Vuelta A Espana once, not to mention having more than 20 career wins in the classics...

Tour de France Technology.... ?

[NitroNeo]

Actually this is not all new innovative technology, both http://www.letour.fr/ and http://www.eurosports.com/ used the live technology last year too. Eurosports was nice because they offer live audio feeds with commentators as you can read the postings, and get live updates with the distance of the race. Maybe in the future the stats for each rider will be available live such as Speed, Heart Rate, RPM's, etc.

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[Vr6dub]

"2. To level the playing field a bit. There are mega teams like Discovery, T-Mobile, etc. that can afford to throw money at a problem. There are smaller teams that can't. By imposing some limits on the technology it allows these smaller teams to compete."

That part is always interesting. It seems like making the machines simpler makes it easier for the "small" guy to get involved. But, just like in NASCAR, F1, and Pro Stock drag racing, where they have imposed limits to try and bring budgets down, the opposite seems to happen. I'll use Pro Stock drag racing as an example: The Pro Stock class was created to allow teams with smaller budgets to race with the big guys so what they did was eliminate power adders (superchargers, turbos, nitrous) and allow for HUGE motors (>800 cubic inches). Well obviously everyone went with the largest motor they could legally have. What happens when you make the rules so narrow is...the teams with money start dumping huge amounts into R&D for the most incremental of improvements. Over time this has driven out the little guy for which the class was created.

The same things happen in F1 alot. They went to a two race rule where your engine had to last two races otherwise you were penalized. Rather than making the components with less expensive/more durable parts the rich teams went crazy with R&D trying to get their same motors to last through the two races.

Long story short...big gains, whatever they may be, are usually relatively inexpensive. It's that last 1/10th of a mph or the last gram of weight that costs all the money.

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[Anonymous Coward]

As to the video, yes, it is spotty. Afterall, the video is by a camera person on a motorbike relayed by one or two choppers and/or planes in the sky, at times occulted by trees, banners and other overgrowth, finally reaching the "press box" at the finish line 100s of km away. This may pose some technical problems.

I guess you can compare the complexity of this to the NFL's absolutely massive 100km long playing fields! Oh well, maybe got the units wrong.

Human Power

[chrisxed]

I have two comments about the technology of professional bike racing. First, there is a bit of disagreement whether the riders' two-way radios make for boring racing (http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/lofiversio n/index.php/t652.html). I think they do, but who cares what I think? The more important detail that I object to is the artificial power source. If these guys are allowed to carry a battery around, why not strap a really big battery on? Where is the battery limit? Clearly it's somewhere. So I'd like to see cyclocomputers and intercom radios powered by the rider.

The second issue that I'd point out is that it seems like European sports like cycling, F1, and soccer are ideal candidates for distribution over the Internet. This was proven to be technically feasible I think by OLN for this year's Giro D'Italia. The reason all such sports could be streamed this way is that the advertising model is in the actual content. I find it ridiculous that Flowmax (some crazy weiner drug) is advertised like crazy while I'd rather be watching bike racing. Why doesn't this drug company just sponsor a cycling team? For our coverage in the USA, it's as if the advertising model was forgotten. Because this is fundamentally the advertising model, I'm somewhat expecting velosport to show up on the Internet for free relatively soon.

As for the letour.fr site, I agree that it's exactly the same as it was in 1999. Now, however, I don't take advantage of the updates and gaps, etc. I can't because I'm watching the race (in PDT) on the hard drive recorder with about 2 hours of timeshift i.e. extra sleep.

Re:the Tour Commentators

[geek2718]

No doubt Phil and Paul are the greatest, and while Al and Bob are useful for their entertainment value in small doses, they aren't worth listening to for any length of time. That said, did anyone else notice that Phil couldn't keep Floyd Landis and Levi Leipheimer straight. Nearly every day he had at least one confusing moment like: "oh no! Landis is cracking!" I panic, look to see a blue gerolsteiner jersey moving backwards... Seriously, by the time Landis did crack in the Alps, I assumed that he was talking about Leipheimer for a moment. Even on the very last day he did it (and that was the only time I ever heard him catch himself!). I mean, I love his commentary, but can't he keep 2 names straight? I guess after 7 years of "Lance this" and "Lance that" he isn't used to talking about more than one American...

Re:Drugs

[mce]

It's not unusual and he didn't use it in order to cheat, but the physiological effect is the same nonetheless. Of course, chemotherapy is very much performance diminishing, so it doesn't really matter.

Landis' case is more interesting, however. He's using cortisone because of his (serious) hip problem. Cortisone a known performance enhancing drug and Landis is very much using it while he's actively racing. Here too, I'm not saying that he's cheating, but the physiological effect is present nonetheless. Whether or not it overcompensates for the hip issue is something I cannot judge, but considering that Landis didn't even inform his team until very recently, the negative effect of his dying hip on his performance cannot be huge yet.

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe. That's just sad...

Re:Overheard At The Starting Line..

[Aqua OS X]

Who busts out with Fatah jokes? Seriously

That's just weird.

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[Anonymous Coward]

in certain Rally races (on the road), one of the rules is "how many cars of this model have been sold in the market?" and they must have sold at least a certain predefined number. So that it is a normal car, not just a prototype.

Re: the tour commentators

[rthille]

Yeah, Bob's ok, he sort of grows on you (like a fungus).
But Sam Posey will make me turn the channel (or rather fast forward on the tivo).

oops

[Anonymous Coward]

Landis gives positive drugs test

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycli ng/5221122.stm

Re:Tour-de-France is actually pretty anti-technolo

[quadelirus]

Rucumbents are only faster on relatively flat stages. Trying to keep up with a traditional bike on an actual climb is virtually impossible. All those speed records you reference are in areas similar to the salt flats.