4 ms·

I don't speak french, but in the video in the article they show several cyclists changing bikes for no apparent reason. I'm guessing that the film makers theory

I don't speak french, but in the video in the article they show several cyclists changing bikes for no apparent reason. I'm guessing that the film makers theory is that they're switching bikes to pass inspection after finishing the race, that's at least the suspicion I get when watching it. I think switching bikes during the race should be banned. Fixing a flat tire, a malfunctioning chain or similar can be allowed, but if your bike breaks beyond repair that should be the end of the race. Ask your manufacturer for better quality next time.

freehunter 11y ago
There are reasons someone might switch bikes seemingly for no reason. This bike is geared for this section of the course, that bike is geared for the next section, etc. Chain is getting loose, and instead of taking two minutes to switch chains, they take 30 seconds to switch bikes. Maybe the tires are a different compound. It could be cheating, but it could be a variety of other reasons as well. I do agree with "if the bike breaks, you're done". Most racing is done this way, with a limited amount of things you're allowed to fix before you have to call it a day. I don't watch Formula racing but I used to watch NASCAR and they're allowed a backup car if they trash theirs during practice or qualifying, but not on race day.
- usrusr 11y ago
  The three weeks Grand Tours have nearly as many stages each as a full formula one season has race days. Asking to do a grande boucle without spares would be like asking formula one to go a whole season on a single set of tires - both would be perfectly possible with some adoption of hardware and tactics, but both would completely change the nature of the events. While promoting equipment durability is a reasonable goal (and has been a cornerstone of competitive cycling during the early years), adding equipment damage DNF to the already rampant injury DNF would bring grand tours close enough last-man-standing events and make them so unpredictable that the semi-random "survivors" would be faceless nobodies to the audience. This is not how business is done in spectator sports. Besides, any restrictions of technical support just add more rules to break. Cycling has already been through all of that. In that famous event, Eugène Christophe was penalized because someone operated the bellows while he fixed his fork at a roadside blacksmith's shop. Much drama happened over questions like wether a rider drank water from a hose coming from a pump not operated by himself or did some teammates maybe secretly switch spare parts. Is that really a line that is easier to draw and monitor than a dead simple "only human powered propulsion" rule? Finding secret motors is a much simpler problem.
  - freehunter 11y ago
    They could easily trade off at the beginning and ends of stages. Start the new day with the fresh bike. It's switching during the actual race that is very surprising to me that it's still allowed. Motorsports let them switch cars between races, and the Tour is hardly one single race. Like you said, it's basically an entire race season, just condensed to "stages". Restricting them to one bike per stage but letting them switch tires and chains is right in line with other sports, and wouldn't allow for any more cheating than there already is and would be super easy to enforce, especially when these days the entire race is monitored by officials. It's not 1913 anymore.
    - usrusr 11y ago
      If the bike breaks mid stage, you either switch or you are DNF. Except when you allow riders who did not finish one stage to continue on the next, which would be totally ridiculous in an endurance event. In that sense, The Tour very much _is_ a single race (for the rider, not for the bike(s)).
      - freehunter 11y ago
        Okay, so then allow for a bike switch if the bike breaks, as judged by a race official. One bike per stage doesn't seem like it would put too much strain on the hardware compared to one bike per year. Surely it would be possible to build bikes at a high enough quality that the number of DNFs would be so incredibly low as to be negligible. I love these Internet arguments that are like "okay, we have to argue and nitpick until we come to an agreement, we are obviously authorities on the matter and now the rules will have to change IRL." Imagine the existing rule was "one bike per stage". What would the arguments in favor of switching to "unlimited bikes per stage" be? And what would be the arguments in favor of keeping the existing rule? I mean, at some NASCAR races only 50% of the starting cars actually finish. Why shouldn't they allow drivers to grab a backup car and keep racing? Does the 24 Hours of Le Mans (another endurance race) allow for backup cars? What's so bad about DNFs for equipment failures? Surely the bikes are a major component to the TDF, otherwise it would be a foot race.

freehunter 11y ago

There are reasons someone might switch bikes seemingly for no reason. This bike is geared for this section of the course, that bike is geared for the next section, etc. Chain is getting loose, and instead of taking two minutes to switch chains, they take 30 seconds to switch bikes. Maybe the tires are a different compound. It could be cheating, but it could be a variety of other reasons as well. I do agree with "if the bike breaks, you're done". Most racing is done this way, with a limited amount of things you're allowed to fix before you have to call it a day. I don't watch Formula racing but I used to watch NASCAR and they're allowed a backup car if they trash theirs during practice or qualifying, but not on race day.

usrusr 11y ago
The three weeks Grand Tours have nearly as many stages each as a full formula one season has race days. Asking to do a grande boucle without spares would be like asking formula one to go a whole season on a single set of tires - both would be perfectly possible with some adoption of hardware and tactics, but both would completely change the nature of the events. While promoting equipment durability is a reasonable goal (and has been a cornerstone of competitive cycling during the early years), adding equipment damage DNF to the already rampant injury DNF would bring grand tours close enough last-man-standing events and make them so unpredictable that the semi-random "survivors" would be faceless nobodies to the audience. This is not how business is done in spectator sports. Besides, any restrictions of technical support just add more rules to break. Cycling has already been through all of that. In that famous event, Eugène Christophe was penalized because someone operated the bellows while he fixed his fork at a roadside blacksmith's shop. Much drama happened over questions like wether a rider drank water from a hose coming from a pump not operated by himself or did some teammates maybe secretly switch spare parts. Is that really a line that is easier to draw and monitor than a dead simple "only human powered propulsion" rule? Finding secret motors is a much simpler problem.
- freehunter 11y ago
  They could easily trade off at the beginning and ends of stages. Start the new day with the fresh bike. It's switching during the actual race that is very surprising to me that it's still allowed. Motorsports let them switch cars between races, and the Tour is hardly one single race. Like you said, it's basically an entire race season, just condensed to "stages". Restricting them to one bike per stage but letting them switch tires and chains is right in line with other sports, and wouldn't allow for any more cheating than there already is and would be super easy to enforce, especially when these days the entire race is monitored by officials. It's not 1913 anymore.
  - usrusr 11y ago
    If the bike breaks mid stage, you either switch or you are DNF. Except when you allow riders who did not finish one stage to continue on the next, which would be totally ridiculous in an endurance event. In that sense, The Tour very much _is_ a single race (for the rider, not for the bike(s)).
    - freehunter 11y ago
      Okay, so then allow for a bike switch if the bike breaks, as judged by a race official. One bike per stage doesn't seem like it would put too much strain on the hardware compared to one bike per year. Surely it would be possible to build bikes at a high enough quality that the number of DNFs would be so incredibly low as to be negligible. I love these Internet arguments that are like "okay, we have to argue and nitpick until we come to an agreement, we are obviously authorities on the matter and now the rules will have to change IRL." Imagine the existing rule was "one bike per stage". What would the arguments in favor of switching to "unlimited bikes per stage" be? And what would be the arguments in favor of keeping the existing rule? I mean, at some NASCAR races only 50% of the starting cars actually finish. Why shouldn't they allow drivers to grab a backup car and keep racing? Does the 24 Hours of Le Mans (another endurance race) allow for backup cars? What's so bad about DNFs for equipment failures? Surely the bikes are a major component to the TDF, otherwise it would be a foot race.