From cyclingnews.com:
The first priority for a training camp, aside from handing out the new equipment, is aquatinting the new riders - whether they be new to the team, or new to professional cycling as a whole.
Now we all make mistakes, especially when writing under pressure, but what exactly is aquatinting? Do all the riders get spray-painted in blue? Does it have a performance-enhancing quality? Is it cooler to ride with an aqua tint? Should it be banned?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Tour of California - wrap up
It was pretty good, actually. Levi fought off all challengers, especially Voigt, to win overall. CSC won heaps of stages and lots of Aussies won both stages and intermediates as well. Read the CN coverage here.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Cali Tour 2007 - sprinters on form
A few interesting things to look at after 2 satges of the Tour of California. Firstly the win by Rabobank's Graeme Brown, carrying on from late last season; and JJ Haedo picking up with where he left off as well. Brown had to prove himslef last year in to to stay with Rabo - even McEwen couldn't do that, you'll recall - whereas JJ was looking to move to a bigger team. Which he did. So this win is a payback to CSC for their trust.
It's early season, too, so we shouldn't get too excited, but we have a few Aussies up front and the big sprinters are showing their wheels as well. But not (yet) winning: Hushovd 3rd, Davis 4th.
Otherwise, it's interesting to see Leipheimer in the lead overall and back with his old team, Discovery.
It's early season, too, so we shouldn't get too excited, but we have a few Aussies up front and the big sprinters are showing their wheels as well. But not (yet) winning: Hushovd 3rd, Davis 4th.
Otherwise, it's interesting to see Leipheimer in the lead overall and back with his old team, Discovery.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Some technical stuff about frame design
All of this talk about spooky handling makes me want to discuss rake and angles. I bet you want to too. Sure, you say.
So what is it and what does it matter? Well think of your standard triangular frame. Ditch the wheels, just look at the frame. A steep head or seat angle simply means a larger number - say 72 instead of 71 degrees. If that's hard to imagine just think 'straight up' would be 90 degrees or perpendicular to the road. So a slacker angle is just another way of saying it's a smaller number. So 71 is slacker than 72 or 73, say. And a slack seat tube produces a 'laid back' or comfy bike. Your typical Euro road frame is slack, like a Look, or a LeMond (yeah, yeah, he's a Yank, but he's in the 'comfy' zone of frame design).
But that's not all. Frame designers have to consider trail, caster, center of gravity and wheelbase, amongst many other things. You may like to refer to my automotive handling guide for some more definitions and explanations (cars are just 2 bikes lashed together side-by-side after all).
Anyway, caster is like what you see on shopping trolley wheels - those wheels are even called casters. They clearly point backwards and if by chance they point forwards when you push on the trolley they swing around to point back again. This effect is called self-steering and the effect is called caster. The amount of caster you have is measured as trail. Ahhhh, now that's a bike term.
So if you draw one line down the center of your steerer tube until it intersects the ground and then drop a vertical line from your front hub to the ground, the two lines hit the ground in different places. The difference is measured as the trail, and more trail the greater the caster effect. In other words the greater the self-steering effect and thus the more stable the bike. The opposite applies, of course, in that as you reduce trail the bike becomes progressively less stable and less likely to self-steer. It becomes twitchier, or more responsive if you like. Now zero trail would be a real handful; and if you go beyond that you'd have the bike from hell.
Now a track bike must have great stability, as you don't want it to twitch in the middle of a fast pack of riders during a full-on sprint; and a road bike will want some stability too, but a criterium bike will want more responsiveness. So changing the trail is how you go about altering your bike's handling. By changing the forks (easiest way) or by changing the steerer tube angle.
You get it? Combinations of head angle and fork rake will alter your responsiveness. But wait, there's more. You are the biggest mass on a bike - by far. And where you put your weight matters a lot. If your position is rearwards then your weight will be rearwards, too. Less weight on the front wheel will lighten your steering and make it feel "twitchy" but possibly increase the understeer as well (so you'll feel as though you are drifting wide in corners). You'll find your front wheel lifting off the deck when you sprint, too.
The reverse is true, too. More weight over the front wheel will give you extra bite, so you'll track truer and feel more stable. You can easily test this out by shifting your weight around as you ride, or by altering your position. Raising your center of gravity - by raising the handlebars and/or saddle will also change the relationship between you and the bike and make for increased instability. Bear in mind that a long stem will also give you a spooky 'floppy' feeling when riding out of the saddle... so that's another complication!
All told, it's the combination of all of these factors that make you feel comfortable with a bike. And the longer and more often you ride the more you'll sub-consciously adapt to it by simply adjusting how you move your weight around on the bike. Trouble is that you may adjust yourself into a bad position that robs you of comfort and power. Which leads into the black art of position.
So what is it and what does it matter? Well think of your standard triangular frame. Ditch the wheels, just look at the frame. A steep head or seat angle simply means a larger number - say 72 instead of 71 degrees. If that's hard to imagine just think 'straight up' would be 90 degrees or perpendicular to the road. So a slacker angle is just another way of saying it's a smaller number. So 71 is slacker than 72 or 73, say. And a slack seat tube produces a 'laid back' or comfy bike. Your typical Euro road frame is slack, like a Look, or a LeMond (yeah, yeah, he's a Yank, but he's in the 'comfy' zone of frame design).
But that's not all. Frame designers have to consider trail, caster, center of gravity and wheelbase, amongst many other things. You may like to refer to my automotive handling guide for some more definitions and explanations (cars are just 2 bikes lashed together side-by-side after all).
Anyway, caster is like what you see on shopping trolley wheels - those wheels are even called casters. They clearly point backwards and if by chance they point forwards when you push on the trolley they swing around to point back again. This effect is called self-steering and the effect is called caster. The amount of caster you have is measured as trail. Ahhhh, now that's a bike term.
So if you draw one line down the center of your steerer tube until it intersects the ground and then drop a vertical line from your front hub to the ground, the two lines hit the ground in different places. The difference is measured as the trail, and more trail the greater the caster effect. In other words the greater the self-steering effect and thus the more stable the bike. The opposite applies, of course, in that as you reduce trail the bike becomes progressively less stable and less likely to self-steer. It becomes twitchier, or more responsive if you like. Now zero trail would be a real handful; and if you go beyond that you'd have the bike from hell.
Now a track bike must have great stability, as you don't want it to twitch in the middle of a fast pack of riders during a full-on sprint; and a road bike will want some stability too, but a criterium bike will want more responsiveness. So changing the trail is how you go about altering your bike's handling. By changing the forks (easiest way) or by changing the steerer tube angle.
You get it? Combinations of head angle and fork rake will alter your responsiveness. But wait, there's more. You are the biggest mass on a bike - by far. And where you put your weight matters a lot. If your position is rearwards then your weight will be rearwards, too. Less weight on the front wheel will lighten your steering and make it feel "twitchy" but possibly increase the understeer as well (so you'll feel as though you are drifting wide in corners). You'll find your front wheel lifting off the deck when you sprint, too.
The reverse is true, too. More weight over the front wheel will give you extra bite, so you'll track truer and feel more stable. You can easily test this out by shifting your weight around as you ride, or by altering your position. Raising your center of gravity - by raising the handlebars and/or saddle will also change the relationship between you and the bike and make for increased instability. Bear in mind that a long stem will also give you a spooky 'floppy' feeling when riding out of the saddle... so that's another complication!
All told, it's the combination of all of these factors that make you feel comfortable with a bike. And the longer and more often you ride the more you'll sub-consciously adapt to it by simply adjusting how you move your weight around on the bike. Trouble is that you may adjust yourself into a bad position that robs you of comfort and power. Which leads into the black art of position.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Aussie track titles - Thuaux report
Phil Thuaux is doing well after getting in those miles at the Tour of Siam...
Men 4000m Individual Pursuit - Final
Gold & Silver Medals
1 Phillip Thuaux 4.24.955
2 Zakkari Dempster 4.30.070
Bronze Medal
3 Cameron Meyer 4.29.691
4 Michael Ford 4.30.686
Phil set a PB of 4.23.555 (54.64 km/h) in qualifying.
Men 4000m Individual Pursuit - Final
Gold & Silver Medals
1 Phillip Thuaux 4.24.955
2 Zakkari Dempster 4.30.070
Bronze Medal
3 Cameron Meyer 4.29.691
4 Michael Ford 4.30.686
Phil set a PB of 4.23.555 (54.64 km/h) in qualifying.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Why Floyd was not super human at all
Interesting take here on whether Floyd really needed any super-powers to do what he did on that fateful stage, from the BikeBiz website. Of course it wasn't super-human, plenty of riders before him have successfully broken away from a peleton and gained the types of advantages quoted, what's more important in the Landis situation is his co-incidental drug-test positive on that same stage. I think most people now agree that the alleged drug abuse would not have given him more than just a mental kick, if indeed he knowingly took the drug, which of course he denies. Only Landis, or perhaps some conspirators somewhere, really know the truth. Anyway, here's the quote:
"And on the CycleOps website, Dr Lim has an explanation of why the stage 17 victory by Floyd Landis in the 2006 Tour de France was not "super-human" or fuelled by testosterone but was well within typical power outputs of Landis and had a lot to do with tactical errors from the peleton and the fact Landis could take on board more water than the chasers.
Lim said: "What is very interesting about the [power] data from the climbs is that it shows that Floyd gained much of his time on the field not on the climbs but on the descents. He's well known as the most talented descender in the pro peleton, and he definitely put on a clinic on S17.
'Because of the direct and immediate feedback from the power meter, Floyd came to an immediate and extraordinarily important realization during his ride -- that every time he poured ice cold water on his body, his power output went up.'"
"And on the CycleOps website, Dr Lim has an explanation of why the stage 17 victory by Floyd Landis in the 2006 Tour de France was not "super-human" or fuelled by testosterone but was well within typical power outputs of Landis and had a lot to do with tactical errors from the peleton and the fact Landis could take on board more water than the chasers.
Lim said: "What is very interesting about the [power] data from the climbs is that it shows that Floyd gained much of his time on the field not on the climbs but on the descents. He's well known as the most talented descender in the pro peleton, and he definitely put on a clinic on S17.
'Because of the direct and immediate feedback from the power meter, Floyd came to an immediate and extraordinarily important realization during his ride -- that every time he poured ice cold water on his body, his power output went up.'"
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Another cycling website
I guess you can't have enough, can you?? Cyclesportnews.com. Hmmm, bit similar to another site's name, but anyway, worth a look. The product reviews are a bit scant on critique.
Tour of Siam - Aussies 1st and 3rd
Tour of Siam - win overall for Jai Crawford, team win by the Giant ART team. Will Ford was 3rd; Phil Thuaux finished 24th overall, by the way. CN report here.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
More on spooky handling
Thinking about that spooky-handling high-end bike...
I rode my wife's track bike last Sunday and had to stop and ponder what the heck was coming loose after less than a lap. I felt unstable, wobbly, like it was about to go out of control. Nothing was loose, so I persisted and got used to it. The difference in 'handling' was all in my position. I was slightly lower and more forward than on my bike. I couldn't get out of the saddle at all - it felt like I would fall if I did. To fix this 'handling' problem would involve firstly raising the saddle and secondly pushing it back, or perhaps changing the stem length. And testing it after every alteration, one change at a time.
My wife is entirely happy with her track bike as it is set up and it looked OK to me as well, with my short legs and all, but shifting my weight forward even slightly changed the whole feel of the thing. My point is that spooky handling can be a combination of many things, not just wheels or frame but position as well. Stem length is a big one in my book, and look at how you are distributing your weight overall, between front and rear.
Just a thought.
I rode my wife's track bike last Sunday and had to stop and ponder what the heck was coming loose after less than a lap. I felt unstable, wobbly, like it was about to go out of control. Nothing was loose, so I persisted and got used to it. The difference in 'handling' was all in my position. I was slightly lower and more forward than on my bike. I couldn't get out of the saddle at all - it felt like I would fall if I did. To fix this 'handling' problem would involve firstly raising the saddle and secondly pushing it back, or perhaps changing the stem length. And testing it after every alteration, one change at a time.
My wife is entirely happy with her track bike as it is set up and it looked OK to me as well, with my short legs and all, but shifting my weight forward even slightly changed the whole feel of the thing. My point is that spooky handling can be a combination of many things, not just wheels or frame but position as well. Stem length is a big one in my book, and look at how you are distributing your weight overall, between front and rear.
Just a thought.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Some more about wheels... and airflow
My friend, he with the Six13 and Lapierre, went on to say, "Yeah, but the more I thought about the test (see my previous post) the more I question the relevance. Most of the top tyres and almost all of the aero tyres were tubulars. How would the stiffness compare on the equivalent clincher? You can get clincher Ritchey WCS carbons for instance. They didn't use that many top end clinchers in the end, I would've liked to have seen Easton's top clincher in there."
To which I would say that clinchers are by design not as stiff, certainly laterally but in every way, as a tubular (ie glue on) rim, whether made of carbon or not. It's stiff by design, being a closed loop, whereas a U-shaped rim can bend more easily.
Undaunted, he went on: "What has me thinking is the front to rear stiffness difference in the Campy Eurus. I do talk about the freaky handling of the Lap, but maybe it was the wheels?"
Which had me thinking about my old Campag 24 spokers. Light, great for climbing, but hopeless in corners. Just too soft laterally (it felt it was laced with spaghetti spokes, cooked ones). Sometimes a bit more weight (as in more spokes) is worth it - again it's horses for courses.
My friend also commented that "the R560 Shimano does pretty well, considering it's their 105 spec wheel. Just shows how far Shimano have come with their wheels and they definately are the best value wheel on the market at the moment."
Probably a good call. I still like Mavics. Those sealed bearings last a long time (mine have lasted 16 years without a failure, and with minimal maintenance).
He also "thought the 50kph (test) was a bit extreme, but I did like that they tested a variety of angles, something that you question when you see the Cervelo Soloist design... surely it can't be that good at anything except straight on (ish)?" Of course on a bike you tend to go forward (hopefully!) so you are always penetrating the air straight on, so the Soloist does make sense. It also has a greater side profile surface area so maybe it is susceptible to crosswinds, but I have trouble in 40-60knot crosswinds on my regular bikes, so maybe it's just a matter of degree?
To which I would say that clinchers are by design not as stiff, certainly laterally but in every way, as a tubular (ie glue on) rim, whether made of carbon or not. It's stiff by design, being a closed loop, whereas a U-shaped rim can bend more easily.
Undaunted, he went on: "What has me thinking is the front to rear stiffness difference in the Campy Eurus. I do talk about the freaky handling of the Lap, but maybe it was the wheels?"
Which had me thinking about my old Campag 24 spokers. Light, great for climbing, but hopeless in corners. Just too soft laterally (it felt it was laced with spaghetti spokes, cooked ones). Sometimes a bit more weight (as in more spokes) is worth it - again it's horses for courses.
My friend also commented that "the R560 Shimano does pretty well, considering it's their 105 spec wheel. Just shows how far Shimano have come with their wheels and they definately are the best value wheel on the market at the moment."
Probably a good call. I still like Mavics. Those sealed bearings last a long time (mine have lasted 16 years without a failure, and with minimal maintenance).
He also "thought the 50kph (test) was a bit extreme, but I did like that they tested a variety of angles, something that you question when you see the Cervelo Soloist design... surely it can't be that good at anything except straight on (ish)?" Of course on a bike you tend to go forward (hopefully!) so you are always penetrating the air straight on, so the Soloist does make sense. It also has a greater side profile surface area so maybe it is susceptible to crosswinds, but I have trouble in 40-60knot crosswinds on my regular bikes, so maybe it's just a matter of degree?
Frames, wheels, handling - a conversation of sorts
A friend started a conversation about wheels. It all starts here with a whinge about the handling of his Lapierre.... but becomes more of a question of wheels and tyres than frames and angles. So what matters most?
The handling comment was: "Generally speaking though, I'm very happy with the new rig (a Cannondale Six13). It's very quick and nice and stable. It's much more evenly balanced, whilst the Lap was very rear heavy... or maybe front light? Either way, it (the Lapierre) didn't fill me with a great deal of confidence."
Sounds like understeer? Could be tyres. Or geometry. My old Saronni (Colnago) track bike runs wide when sprinting on low-banked tracks, but is fine on steep banking. Horses for courses.
Then he shows me this interesting link to a pretty comprehensive wheel test. Have a good look. Wow. Pretty impressive, eh?
Whilst I'm not sure I ride "power on" at 50kmh very often, it's nice to know all these tested wheels are better than a 36-spoker at doing just that - if only by 15-30W! If I was a TTer I'd be going Zipp, but I guess I knew that already. Ksyriums would be a bad choice in a TT or a fast breakaway, at least above 40kmh. I wonder what the power loss is like significantly below 50kmh - negligible, I suspect. And what forks did they use in the test, if any? You'd imagine an aero fork would smooth the flow. And tyres? There's probably a good compromise here but I don't think I can pick it... although they reckon the Shimano is good all round. I guess as they say, it depends on the "domain" you need to use the wheels in... TT, crit, road, training, a combo of events etc etc. And how much $$ you have!!
The handling comment was: "Generally speaking though, I'm very happy with the new rig (a Cannondale Six13). It's very quick and nice and stable. It's much more evenly balanced, whilst the Lap was very rear heavy... or maybe front light? Either way, it (the Lapierre) didn't fill me with a great deal of confidence."
Sounds like understeer? Could be tyres. Or geometry. My old Saronni (Colnago) track bike runs wide when sprinting on low-banked tracks, but is fine on steep banking. Horses for courses.
Then he shows me this interesting link to a pretty comprehensive wheel test. Have a good look. Wow. Pretty impressive, eh?
Whilst I'm not sure I ride "power on" at 50kmh very often, it's nice to know all these tested wheels are better than a 36-spoker at doing just that - if only by 15-30W! If I was a TTer I'd be going Zipp, but I guess I knew that already. Ksyriums would be a bad choice in a TT or a fast breakaway, at least above 40kmh. I wonder what the power loss is like significantly below 50kmh - negligible, I suspect. And what forks did they use in the test, if any? You'd imagine an aero fork would smooth the flow. And tyres? There's probably a good compromise here but I don't think I can pick it... although they reckon the Shimano is good all round. I guess as they say, it depends on the "domain" you need to use the wheels in... TT, crit, road, training, a combo of events etc etc. And how much $$ you have!!
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Tour Down Under result
Just finished watching the TDU on TV. It was McEwen, Renshaw (against the barriers, protesting - but why go there??) and Davis in the final stage. Martin Elmiger from AG2R takes the overall win in the 9th Tour Down Under by just three seconds, his sprinting making the diff.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Team T-Mobile 2007
Clean-rider philosophy aside (good though that is) T-Mobile has one hell of a good squad this year. Both male and female teams are packed with talent. With tour-riders and TTers like Rogers and Gonchar, sprinters like Ciolek... it's a big, strong team. The women's team is also impressive with riders like Wood, Rhodes, Arndt... wow. Also interesting is the new management and support staff like Alan Peiper. Pencil T-Mobile in for some success in '07.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Whoops - a case study on aluminium seat post fatigue
My message for the day: if ever you find your saddle pointing slightly off to one side, don't assume that the seatpost is loose and has rotated slightly in the seat tube. It may in fact be about to do something quite a bit more dramatic.
Yes, it was sudden. I had just put my tyre sock on the bike, so I had looked at the offending part. I saw no cracks. I rode just 2kms and went around a big downward curve at 53kmh. After the curve I noticed the saddle was very slightly skewiff. I checked it 3 or 4 times 'on the move' before slowing to round another, sharper curve at about 25kmh. As I rounded it I stood and then accelerated to exit. I was in a mood to keep up the pace today. However when I went to sit on the saddle it simply collapsed. And yes, I managed to fall off and yes, it hurt.
For the record it was a 16 year old 3TTT 25mm post on a Look KG76. I should have kept a closer eye on it, and cleaned it more often, looking for cracks. I knew that aluminium does let go suddenly, and now I can attest that when it splits it does it in a blink, like a knife through butter. High fatigue items with no redundancy (ie single point of failure with no other support) should be on your list of must-checks.
There are more images here, for the curious.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Jayco Bay series 2007
Renshaw won the big race of the day but (being parochial and all) Central Coast CC rider Dale Scarfe has had a great win and jointly leads the support races at the Bay series. There's a nice shot on the Cyclingnews.com site of Dale winning, too: http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2007/jan07/bayseries07/index.php?id=bayseries072/DSC_0379
Looks like he won by the throw!
Looks like he won by the throw!
Thursday, January 04, 2007
And a mention for Steve Hogg and Cyclefit
I used to race with Randwick Botany and train with a guy called Steve Hogg - he set up a bike shop in '89 and has since become something of a maverick cycle-fit guru. I say maverick because he likes to debunk the cycle-fitment conventions that rely on human biometric "averages". He believes in finding your own most comfortable, powerful position, not relying upon dodgy positional percentages or rules of thumb. Check out his website here.
Thought about pedals lately?
Apart from small differences between brands like Look and Time and a somewhat bigger gap to Speedplay and Keywin, pedals are pedals. The bigger choices are between clipless and clip and strap, and cleat forward vs cleat back; all have fundamental influences upon how you pedal and the efficiency obtained. So how about this: a side-mounted pedal system. The makers claim a 3-4% biomechanical efficiency improvement, which is nothing to sneeze at... although it removes all chance of riding in sneakers, doesn't it?
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Adcock Park records updated
Folks, I have updated the CCCC Adcock park track records. Via Paul Craft. So blame him for any errors!
An old fashioned story of drug cheating
Interesting story at Cyclingnews.com of a rider (Rachel Dard, by name) caught out in several ways - back in the old days- 1976 in fact. He was apparently cheating by doping, then cheating the test by swapping urine, then cheating by pressuring the doctor to let him off by destroying his report. Upon realising he hadn't completed the job thoroughly enough he chased said doctor and pressured him again to destroy the empty vials, only to come undone when the doctor finally spilled the beans anyway. Now one must wonder exactly how many got away with it. Plenty, one suspects. But these were days before EPO, so we are talking (presumably) of steroids, cortisone and amphetamines.
Not good, certainly, and even in the amateur ranks it was common enough to know of this sort of thing. Drinks that were "special" and only for a given rider - laced with brandy or whatever alcohol they preferred, to be used prior to the sprint... although what effect that may have had is difficult to judge - maybe the effect was in their head? Or bananas with amphetamines for that lift you need, or think you need, just before a sprint or major climb. And the ever-present No-doze tabs. It can't have been just me hearing these stories, or watching riders throwing tantrums when they got the "wrong" banana... can it?
Not good, certainly, and even in the amateur ranks it was common enough to know of this sort of thing. Drinks that were "special" and only for a given rider - laced with brandy or whatever alcohol they preferred, to be used prior to the sprint... although what effect that may have had is difficult to judge - maybe the effect was in their head? Or bananas with amphetamines for that lift you need, or think you need, just before a sprint or major climb. And the ever-present No-doze tabs. It can't have been just me hearing these stories, or watching riders throwing tantrums when they got the "wrong" banana... can it?
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Cronulla capers - racing in the Shire
I've always liked Cronulla - wide streets, endless beaches... and the ferry to Bundeena. The fact that it's almost on a peninsula - surrounded on 3 sides by water - Botany Bay, Port Hacking and the Pacific Ocean - has arguably preserved its charm, high rise blemishes not withstanding. Strangely it has a heavy rail line (which replaced the old steam tram, but I guess that's another story) a bit of a luxury for such a small pocket of Sydney. It's a great place to hold a bike race. And so they did.
Now it was great to get live TV coverage - but as usual we had ill-timed ad breaks when riders went away, and when we came back to the action we got a long interview with a rugby league coach. Oh well.
Great, dominating ride by Kate Nicols to win the women's crit. As for the elite male racing, it was great to see Rabo's Brown win and Disco's White making impressive attacks... but it had a feel to it, somewhat akin to "off season" or "staged". Now it may have been absolutely legit, but firstly we saw McEwen go away in a break and then get caught (so the public got to see the road sprinter in action); followed by a successful break and a home-town win (just!) by the pro sprinter. Hmmm. Local boy Whitey was 3rd. Hmmm. Now I'm convinced the locals were indeed trying - no question about it (great rides by local crit specialists Jose Rodriguez and Peter McDonald, btw) - but the pros were taking it a bit easy, surely? I have seen similar local crit fields blown apart (and lapped) by just one pro on his "off season" break... but who would profit from seeing that under the gaze of the crowds and TV cameras? No-one one, really. The pros want to put on a show - that's their job - and don't want to crush the locals just for the sake of it. And that's exactly what we got. It was great to watch, anyway.
Now it was great to get live TV coverage - but as usual we had ill-timed ad breaks when riders went away, and when we came back to the action we got a long interview with a rugby league coach. Oh well.
Great, dominating ride by Kate Nicols to win the women's crit. As for the elite male racing, it was great to see Rabo's Brown win and Disco's White making impressive attacks... but it had a feel to it, somewhat akin to "off season" or "staged". Now it may have been absolutely legit, but firstly we saw McEwen go away in a break and then get caught (so the public got to see the road sprinter in action); followed by a successful break and a home-town win (just!) by the pro sprinter. Hmmm. Local boy Whitey was 3rd. Hmmm. Now I'm convinced the locals were indeed trying - no question about it (great rides by local crit specialists Jose Rodriguez and Peter McDonald, btw) - but the pros were taking it a bit easy, surely? I have seen similar local crit fields blown apart (and lapped) by just one pro on his "off season" break... but who would profit from seeing that under the gaze of the crowds and TV cameras? No-one one, really. The pros want to put on a show - that's their job - and don't want to crush the locals just for the sake of it. And that's exactly what we got. It was great to watch, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)