Professional Cycling For the Fans - Tour coverage should evolve

I started watching cycling a couple of years ago and honestly find myself fast forwarding though most of it. Now in a in a industry where bicycles are so “high” tech that they cost as mush as a high performance 600cc sport bike, I think we really need to get with the times and update how the media covers the tour. I would like to find some middle ground between were we are now and coverage that includes the following. I also understand that some of these items will have issues in the mountains but IMO it’s sad when NASCAR has higher tech coverage than cycling.

More speed coverage
Grade
GPS tracking of the riders
Computer generated maps that track the cyclist and can be used by the announcers for predictions.
Power
Heart Rate
Helmet cams

I think it would be great to see how many WATTs a break way is averaging as compared to the teams chasing them, I can’t be the only one who wants to see how much power the sprinters are putting down. Yes I know some riders will not like the extra gear but I have things at work I don’t like too. I also don’t mind if they have to delay coverage in order to put this together.


We should at least get something like this for the time trial. I mean I am sure that they can do better than a couple of time check points.
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/1/Extreme-Downhill-Mountain-biking-with-Dan-Atherton-on-the-641501.html

Well, this goes back to the difference between how both auto racing and bike racing evolved in Europe and the United States. Europe has long favored point-to-point racing, while in the US it's long been circuit racing. When autos in Europe were forced into circuits, the "circuits" were huge. Think LeMans, the old Spa, or the Nordschleife. The Targa Florio course was 11 laps of a mountain: 72 km per lap! (In contrast, the relatively tiny Indianapolis track was scaled *up* from more common venues.) Bike racing in Europe has never had to make that transition and still uses the original point to point format.

In the US you can see the whole course from any grandstand seat. Why? Because America was big and (relatively) sparsely populated. There was no "moneyed class" to provide the costs, so events had to be self-funded. Auto races were introduced as local events because once the cars left town there was no one to buy tickets, so the format had to be circuit racing. And spectators got used to being able to see the whole event on a single ticket. Similarly when bike racing was the rage here, even long-distance events were conducted in a velodrome.

Because of this history, point-to-point events like ToC draw surprisingly large crowds, yet they are - and probably never will be - self-supporting.

Anyway, to the issue:

NASCAR has a fee-paying audience and huge TV contracts. They have an incentive to improve coverage, and they can spread their costs over 40-some events per year. TdF has no similar audience, probably no similar TV contracts, and one event per year. (Actually, ASO expanding into other events might change this equation, so there's hope.)


NASCAR runs on closed circuits. The cars go by 200 times per event. At TdF they go by once.


NASCAR can hard-wire every camera and measuring device. In TdF the signals go through a (mobile!) ground transmitter, to a helicopter, to an airplane, to a control center, to a satellite, etc.


NASCAR can make permanent installations, and at worst have to set up once a week. In TdF all the equipment has to be moved and set up every night, over roads that can be nearly impassable.


In NASCAR the platform weighs 1545 kg and is powered by a 900 HP engine on a flat track. Adding a camera, motorized mount, batteries, etc. makes no measurable difference, and at worst comes out of the minimum weight. In TdF the platform weighs 1/10th that yet is pushed by a mere 1/2500th the power — up mountains. Additional mass might be accommodated by adjusting minimum weight, but it better not weigh more than a few grams! So how much does a power hub and transponder mass?


All that said, I too would like to see improved coverage. Let them start by figuring out how to produce a HD signal! :crash:

I also think that a great deal more can be done with the current transponders. The location of riders on the course, integrated with a detailed course profile, would make coverage a lot more interesting to me. Maybe they don't do it because the French don't watch NASCAR so they don't know what they're missing.

More advanced TV coverage? Hell, I'd be thrilled with any coverage here. Besides the TDF there is none.

Not sure how good a job Versus will do this year, but IMO the technical aspects of Universal Sports' coverage of the Giro usually gave a pretty good idea of the speed and the grade.

GPS tracking and extra maps aren't really necessary. What matters is 1) how far the leaders are from the finish, and 2) critical time gaps (e.g. breakaway vs peloton, 1st place GC rider vs 2nd or 3rd GC etc) and 3) length and location of climbs. Commentators may not be great, but they do usually get this info across.

Teams almost never publish power & HR numbers. Even if you could transmit that info on the fly, the DS's would freak out if someone published their top GC guys' power numbers during the race. It would be like broadcasting an NFL coach's comments and instructions during a game....

Helmet cams would be fun, but boring compared to MTB or even alleycat races. "Wow, look at the asphalt. Wow, yet more asphalt! Hey, it's a tree."

That downhill video is OK, but all that stuff is kind of distracting, and not really relevant to road racing.


Or to put it another way, I'd rather have top-notch commentators than showy CGI stuff and extra maps.

Anyone familiar with World Rally coverage? One of the truly outstanding features is where they overlay the second-by-second position of the competitors on a course map, and you can see graphically where and in what circumstance each guy is gaining and losing time. This is a pipe dream for bike races, but something I for one would love to see.

As for power numbers, given the course profile and the position of the bike by time, power is easily derived. Nothing to hide, and really no reason to hide it. For instance, if AC puts out 400W in an acceleration and LL puts out 300W steady-state, so what? Does that mean AC beats LL? Nope. In this case bike racing is not like auto racing. The engines are **** Sapiens, with all the nonsense that accompanies that species.

There was no "moneyed class" to provide the costs

Yeah there was/is no "moneyed class" in the US. Go read a history book or five son. :roflmao2:

Oh, there was money, but no aristocracy - and no tradition of noblesse oblige.


Nowadays that's been replaced by a) corporate sponsorship, b) our tax dollars at work and at play.

Good post. I have always thought the coverage should be better of TDF, but not so much about showing power,ect. I would just like to see them come up with a way to make it more exciting & to have a better sense of what is going on overall. Just seems like it should be better. Also some close ups of the bikes as the pros are putting the equipment thru the paces. Would love to see where the chain is on the cassette on some of the climbs.... Yes, HD would be great too. - Steve

the cool thing about cycling is that if you get bored watch a bike race, you can take your butt outside and do the exact same thing they're doing, just slower.

can't say the same for car racing or anything like that-- unless you go to a specific track or event which may not be happening at a convenient time for you.

I started watching cycling a couple of years ago and honestly find myself fast forwarding though most of it. Now in a in a industry where bicycles are so “high” tech that they cost as mush as a high performance 600cc sport bike, I think we really need to get with the times and update how the media covers the tour. I would like to find some middle ground between were we are now and coverage that includes the following. I also understand that some of these items will have issues in the mountains but IMO it’s sad when NASCAR has higher tech coverage than cycling.

More speed coverage
Grade
GPS tracking of the riders
Computer generated maps that track the cyclist and can be used by the announcers for predictions.
Power
Heart Rate
Helmet cams

I think it would be great to see how many WATTs a break way is averaging as compared to the teams chasing them, I can’t be the only one who wants to see how much power the sprinters are putting down. Yes I know some riders will not like the extra gear but I have things at work I don’t like too. I also don’t mind if they have to delay coverage in order to put this together.


We should at least get something like this for the time trial. I mean I am sure that they can do better than a couple of time check points.
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/1/Extreme-Downhill-Mountain-biking-with-Dan-Atherton-on-the-641501.html

Some of these improvements might be nice if they could be implemented without adversely effecting the riders. But at the present time just getting any coverage of anything in America other than a couple of the big races is the problem. The TDF coverage is about as good as it gets. If most bike races had that good of coverage and could be seen in America on a few channels, life would be good.

And while circuit races in America would be easier to video. They would probably be rather boring to watch. In fact, it may be that short circuit races in America are one of the reasons for the disinterest in bike racing. In my opinion there is not enough speed and loud noise to interest a large number of spectators in a bike circuit race. But at least people can identify with the adventure of going on a long road ride away from home on their own power.

It's the camera close ups that matter in bike racing and can only be had with traveling motorcycle cameras. So when you need 6-8 motorcycle cameras, a few fixed cameras and preferably 2 helicopter cameras ( though 1 helicam is often good enough), the cost gets high to video a long bike race. And only the big bike races can afford to do this. This alone might be one of the reasons that there is not more bike racing coverage on TV. Because the video coverage is poor in all but the biggest races.

However, I wonder if small recessed helmet CAMs in time trial helmets could help to improve the TT coverage which is usually not very interesting. To cover a TT well requires lots of fixed cameras so most of the whole course can be viewed. But since this is seldom done, a few frames of helmet cam here and there might make things more fun to watch.

The one thing that they could add which would ramp up the excitement for viewers would be to have several cameras in the team cars filming the crews which are following the riders. In order to protect team tactics only TV audiences would be allowed to see what was going on in the cars. The team cars would not be allowed to have TV's in them. Only the 2-way radios to the riders.

Helmet cams would be fun, but boring compared to MTB or even alleycat races. "Wow, look at the asphalt. Wow, yet more asphalt! Hey, it's a tree."



What would be great would be to see what the riders are looking at along the side of the road ... ever notice when every guy in the peloton has a big sh-t-eating grin on their face and they are all looking at the side of the road? Think they are staring at some looney in a devil's outfit or a giant polar bear costume? What they ARE looking at would be a real treat to see.

That and they should "mike up" the peloton - have it on a delay and kill any team-only conversations ... I'd just like to hear them bit-h at one another!

At the very least I think a real world speed measure would give non/new fans a mental scale so they too could "Holy Shi*! He was going 100kph down that hill!" Fans love data they can process.... watts? It's like recently the skiing has been using the occasional "he's going 140 kph down this section", which makes even more exciting to know he's doing fast highway speeds on two sticks of CF.

the cam stuff will be difficult as it was mentioned above weight, telemetry data is proprietary .. even in motorsport. You don't hear about how rick the mixture is or how many HP they squeezed out by doing doing such and such.

The point is most of the riders are already logging a lot of the stats listed and it wouldn't take much to add a transmitter and if I am not mistaken I think they did show the HR of a couple of riders last year so this means it is doable without a substantial amount of weight and even if it slowed them down a mph I would say it is worth it. I don’t think you would notice a mph difference over a 100mi watching on TV.

I also agree it isn’t going to change the race that much since everyone can see every ones stats, so why would the teams freak, even playing field? And it isn’t always the guy putting down the most Watts that wins the race… You can stay in the middle of the peloton and use up to 40% less power. I guess tracking a riders stats over time may help with predictions but I would enjoy seeing the predictions based on stats and seeing how that influences the race.

It is true that watching cycling isn’t that popular in the states but unless there is a change it never will be and once Lance is retires again we can go back to even less televised events.

I also agree it isn’t going to change the race that much since everyone can see every ones stats, so why would the teams freak, even playing field?
Keeping in mind that I'm not a DS ;), if the power numbers were publicly available, it'd be much easier to figure out whether or not Rider X still has anything left in the tank, if he's pushing harder than usual, and so forth. E.g. it's a tough mountain stage, Rider X goes up the road, the DS looks at Rider X's numbers and tells his GC guy either to hold off or attack.

Should every NFL team publish their playbook? Just for the benefit of a few curious fans? Doing so would "even the playing field," but I'm sure the coaches would flip out if you suggested it.

Also some close ups of the bikes as the pros are putting the equipment thru the paces. Would love to see where the chain is on the cassette on some of the climbs.... Yes, HD would be great too. - Steve

Well, presumably with HD you could make out details like what gear the guy's in. As it is you can barely tell *who* the guy is.

Should every NFL team publish their playbook? Just for the benefit of a few curious fans? Doing so would "even the playing field," but I'm sure the coaches would flip out if you suggested it.[/QUOTE]

I think comparing a play book to publishing a riders stats is apples and oranges. The closest thing would be to may the communication between them and the team car public during the race... If you look at, say football... they have published practically every stat imaginable down to running speed, fumbles, avg dist, tackles,,, the list goes on.

And the extra stats "may" help predicting what I rider is going to do but the stats will change day to day and does not guarantee that there prediction will be right

I think comparing a play book to publishing a riders stats is apples and oranges....
You're missing the point.

It's not that real-time power/HR data is a set of pre-determined strategies. It's that they would be publishing critical information that the opposing DS's could use to predict what a rider is going to do, how much they have left in the tank, and so forth. And as with the playbook, while some things are predictable, a certain amount of secrecy is critical to success.



And the extra stats "may" help predicting what I rider is going to do but the stats will change day to day and does not guarantee that there prediction will be right
If it's accurate enough to help the DS and rider to figure out what to do, it's accurate enough for the opposing DS to do the same -- especially since everyone will start profiling key riders immediately. After a season or so, they'll know almost as much about an athlete's abilities as his team.

...

I also think that a great deal more can be done with the current transponders. The location of riders on the course, integrated with a detailed course profile, would make coverage a lot more interesting to me. ...

They've tried this with the ATOC. There are a lot of bugs to be worked out.

...even if it slowed them down a mph I would say it is worth it. I don’t think you would notice a mph difference over a 100mi watching on TV. ...

Think about what you just wrote. Stages of 4-5 hours are routine, and some are six, seven or more hours. One mph over 4 hours, puts a rider back 4 miles. That's over 8 minutes! :eek: I don't think Cadel would notice losing 8 minutes to Contador on a stage. :rolleyes:

Now, of course the monitors they wear don't slow the riders down any more than does mounting a cyclo computer (maybe 1/1000th of a mph) , but there are other problems - which others have already noted.

the cool thing about cycling is that if you get bored watch a bike race, you can take your butt outside and do the exact same thing they're doing, just slower.

can't say the same for car racing or anything like that-- unless you go to a specific track or event which may not be happening at a convenient time for you.

I agree!! One of my favorite reasons for watching pro cycling is the inspiration I get when I go out for my next ride. That's why the Tour of California was hard, because it was still really cold in DC -- but I bundled up and got out there anyway!

I'm still waiting for Death Race TDF™.