ForumGarden

The Brits have done it again ! Good for you Chris Froome winning the Tour De France for the second year running ! Sorry you had to put up with certain members of the crowd throwing things at you and spitting at you and booing you, all because of unfounded suspicion of drug use ! I'm damn sure that the frequent drug tests would have found traces if any of the Brits had been cheating like that.

Froome Heads Home After Tour De France Win

There seems to be two forms of sport, one in which the athlete is unaided and another in which the quality of the equipment used makes the difference between winning and losing. For all the brand-name running equipment used by her competitors, Zola Budd won barefoot. In direct contrast, I doubt whether anyone could win the Tour de France without a bike of astonishing quality.

Perhaps we need to use two words, "sport" and "event". Athletics is a sport. The Tour de France cycle race is an event, like Formula 1. The participants of these events may be fit but they're not necessarily sportspeople.

spot;1483277 wrote: There seems to be two forms of sport, one in which the athlete is unaided and another in which the quality of the equipment used makes the difference between winning and losing. For all the brand-name running equipment used by her competitors, Zola Budd won barefoot. In direct contrast, I doubt whether anyone could win the Tour de France without a bike of astonishing quality.

Perhaps we need to use two words, "sport" and "event". Athletics is a sport. The Tour de France cycle race is an event. The participants may be fit but they're not necessarily sportspeople.


You're quite right about the exceptional equipment required, Spot. In British cycle development, there is a group of "developers" nicknamed "the department of marginal gains", set up to make wheels as perfectly round as possible, and as light as possible. This same ethos applies to all parts of a competitors bike; and all the cumulative tiny gains equal something noticeable. The other element is, of course, desire to win above all else, hence another British tour win. The others will catch up, though. Like Mercedes in the F1 cars, they won't be "king of the heap" forever.

British cycling should enjoy it's (probably) brief period "in the sunshine". Let's hope there's no performance-enhancing drugs involved, especially after the Armstrong debacle.

spot;1483277 wrote: There seems to be two forms of sport, one in which the athlete is unaided and another in which the quality of the equipment used makes the difference between winning and losing. For all the brand-name running equipment used by her competitors, Zola Budd won barefoot. In direct contrast, I doubt whether anyone could win the Tour de France without a bike of astonishing quality.

Perhaps we need to use two words, "sport" and "event". Athletics is a sport. The Tour de France cycle race is an event, like Formula 1. The participants of these events may be fit but they're not necessarily sportspeople.


Did Zola run on a cinder track ?

Once the 'playing field' is leveled it still takes the better athlete to win......doesn't it ?

Bruv;1483297 wrote: Did Zola run on a cinder track ?

Once the 'playing field' is leveled it still takes the better athlete to win......doesn't it ?


I did not follow the career of Ms Budd sufficiently closely to know the answer to that.

I don't think any of the Bike Races even attempt to level the playing field in terms of standardizing the bikes, other than banning any form of chemical or flywheel energy store.

I also note that, as with Formula 1, the Tour de France cycle race is privately owned for profit, as are several other of the most well-known contests.

spot;1483299 wrote: I did not follow the career of Ms Budd sufficiently closely to know the answer to that.

I don't think any of the Bike Races even attempt to level the playing field in terms of standardizing the bikes, other than banning any form of chemical or flywheel energy store.

I also note that, as with Formula 1, the Tour de France cycle race is privately owned for profit, as are several other of the most well-known contests.


My point being it takes a better athlete to beat the others............if.......the equipment they all have the opportunity to use is regulated.

You are, I think, suggesting that the worse athlete might win the Tour de France cycle race merely by buying superior technology.

Bruv;1483300 wrote: My point being it takes a better athlete to beat the others............if.......the equipment they all have the opportunity to use is regulated.


Spot on Bruv, so to speak.

In a race that long there are many other factors involved. It is a team contest and accidents do happen. Good luck applies.

All said and done, it does come down to the guy in a saddle.

spot;1483301 wrote: You are, I think, suggesting that the worse athlete might win the Tour de France cycle race merely by buying superior technology.


I am saying put a donkey on the best bike possible and you are on a looser.

Put two athletes on identical bikes and the better athlete wins.

The rules being the same, the better athlete wins.

Whatever sport you name the equipment changes, swimmers wear sleeker costumes, running tracks and shoes improve, tennis rackets improve, all within allowed parameters.

Most sport now is professional, if you are good enough, you attract the better sponsors with the best equipment money can buy and that might give you an edge over others of equivalent ability.

I agree with Bruv. One could have the finest tools of the trade to work with, but if you are not very good at your job you will still fail to make the grade.

I'm merely suggesting that in a world-class field, the difference between first and second is quite likely the bike maintenance team rather than the rider since the riders' performances are, at that level, within a gnat's testicle of each other. Just as Formula 1 is only winnable, over a season, by the best car design.

I wonder how much control the race organizers and officials require over the bike builds and configurations.

spot;1483342 wrote: I'm merely suggesting that in a world-class field, the difference between first and second is quite likely the bike maintenance team rather than the rider since the riders' performances are, at that level, within a gnat's testicle of each other. Just as Formula 1 is only winnable, over a season, by the best car design.


As you wish.

But I don't think you can compare a physical endurance sport like The Tour with a car endurance sport like F1..........but thats just me.

LarsMac;1483343 wrote: I wonder how much control the race organizers and officials require over the bike builds and configurations.


6.8 is one of those numeric constants that every cyclist is familiar with. It refers to the 6.8 kilogram minimum weight limit set by the UCI which restricts all bikes used in competition to this weight.

Bruv;1483348 wrote: 6.8 is one of those numeric constants that every cyclist is familiar with. It refers to the 6.8 kilogram minimum weight limit set by the UCI which restricts all bikes used in competition to this weight.


I would assume that the rules go beyond minimum weight requirements for the bikes, but even so, I would imagine that to clever designers it still leaves room for manoeuvre.

Smaug;1483373 wrote: I would assume that the rules go beyond minimum weight requirements for the bikes, but even so, I would imagine that to clever designers it still leaves room for manoeuvre.


Here are the full regulations,they even stipulate the type of cloth and sock length.

Bruv;1483387 wrote: they even stipulate the type of cloth and sock length.
So do the Mendicant Barefoot Friars. Except the sock bit. Sack-cloth, no underwear, and a flail.

spot;1483390 wrote: So do the Mendicant Barefoot Friars. Except the sock bit. Sack-cloth, no underwear, and a flail.


At what sport do they compete ?

Make their eyes water having no underwear on a bike ?

Bruv;1483387 wrote: Here are the full regulations,they even stipulate the type of cloth and sock length.


Didn't notice anything about tyres/compounds mentioned in the new UCI rules, or is that already covered under existing rules? Or gears/shifters. Like any rule-set, it's the enforcement standards that will define how successful this is at levelling the play-field.

Here is the FULL equipment regs

I am no authority on cycle racing, I was just trying to make a point that.......given a level playing field.....and application of the accepted rules.....the better athlete wins....on a good day (everybody has off days)

So any improvement in equipment should only give the competitor an edge until everybody else adopts the same improvement......within the accepted rules.....so the best athlete wins over time.

Bruv;1483434 wrote: Here is the FULL equipment regs

I am no authority on cycle racing, I was just trying to make a point that.......given a level playing field.....and application of the accepted rules.....the better athlete wins....on a good day (everybody has off days)

So any improvement in equipment should only give the competitor an edge until everybody else adopts the same improvement......within the accepted rules.....so the best athlete wins over time.


I would agree with your point if the play-field is level, and the rules, and performance enhancing drugs checks are rigorously enforced for all competitors. Just like Mercedes in F1 at present, technical advantage is only a temporary thing (as is physical advantage IMO). As for cycling, though I was a keen cyclist in my youth (often cycling up to 80-100 miles on a Saturday or Sunday), I'm definitely no rules expert either!

Thanks for the full rules Bruv, they might come in handy for checking if someone on a big event has transgressed, and thus made the headlines.

While it may or may not all even out over time - and I suggest whether or not it does will depend on the financial resources of the team over time - we seem to have lost sight of the fact that we're discussing a single race.

The factors will be the fitness and skill of the athlete, and the best pair may be indistinguishable in those terms.

There will be an element of luck, since falling in a bunch seems commonplace and can screw up performance for some while after.

And there will be the technical excellence of the hardware, which for a given race will beyond doubt vary from one team to another.

There is always an element of luck in most sporting events. The best sports person will attract the richest sponsor with the most to spend on equipment improvement and innovation.

Improvements at the top level are marginal I should imagine, the example of Zola Budd running barefoot and winning against athletes wearing expensive sponsored shoes seems to prove that point, doesn't it ?

I seem to recall that Zola Budd used to smoke, too! Is this true?

Smaug;1483461 wrote: I seem to recall that Zola Budd used to smoke, too! Is this true?


A clay pipe ?

Only teasing, I have no idea.

spot;1483277 wrote: There seems to be two forms of sport, one in which the athlete is unaided and another in which the quality of the equipment used makes the difference between winning and losing. For all the brand-name running equipment used by her competitors, Zola Budd won barefoot. In direct contrast, I doubt whether anyone could win the Tour de France without a bike of astonishing quality.

Perhaps we need to use two words, "sport" and "event". Athletics is a sport. The Tour de France cycle race is an event, like Formula 1. The participants of these events may be fit but they're not necessarily sportspeople.
I agree. I could never understand how Snooker or Darts can possibly be categorised as a 'Sport'.

Perhaps they qualify as skills, like riding a unicycle or walking on stilts.

spot;1483509 wrote: Perhaps they qualify as skills, like riding a unicycle or walking on stilts.
Skills, most definitely. Sports? No way.

FourPart;1483511 wrote: Skills, most definitely. Sports? No way.


They are classed as games, I believe. Skill is needed to compete. Sport? Not really, though perhaps golf is more of a grey area, insomuch as a certain amount of physical fitness is required to play. I think it was Mark Twain who said something like; " Golf, the ruination of a good walk!"

spot;1483509 wrote: Perhaps they qualify as skills, like riding a unicycle or walking on stilts.


Darts on a unicycle. Snooker on stilts. What's not to like there ? That's a winner that is.

Shooting firearms is still an Olympic "Sport" for some reason.

Snowfire;1483548 wrote: Darts on a unicycle. Snooker on stilts. What's not to like there ? That's a winner that is.


Skeet shooting on pogo-sticks?

spot;1483552 wrote: Shooting firearms is still an Olympic "Sport" for some reason.


I would have said it was marksmanship, rather than sport.

I once heard that the original idea behind the events of the Olympics was to use the skills required in Warfare in a peaceful way. Whether that's true or just an Urban Myth, I have no idea.

FourPart;1483609 wrote: I once heard that the original idea behind the events of the Olympics was to use the skills required in Warfare in a peaceful way. Whether that's true or just an Urban Myth, I have no idea.


I think you may be right, FourPart. Discus, javelin, wrestling and hammer would fit that criteria, as would endurance events, such as the pentathlon.

Ancient Olympics

Looks like Wiki's decision is.....maybe, and that's final!:-2