My unpopular opinion is that the UCI’s bike rules are too lax. We need stricter regulations on frameset designs.
In my opinion this should be banned. Maybe even the new Colnago Y1Rs. Make the racing about the riders. The strongest or the most clever. Less about the bikes. I don’t want to see a race won because they have a super advantage from the bike. I wouldn’t mind completely banning TT bikes and just making them all Merckx style. You want to call it “the race of truth” then actually make it that instead of a aero tech arms race. Make it an actual test of strength. Make them do all TTs on a normal road bike. It would be cheaper too if they didn’t have to spend all that money testing in the wind tunnel. If all I cared about was the fastest bike I’d watch moto racing. It’s why CX is exciting. Suboptimal bikes that are not suited for the course.
Seriously, it would be a fun experiment to take a Grand Tour or another stage race, include a TT but put every rider on the same bike and wheelset. No crazy TT helmets or bikes. No disc wheels. Everybody on the same setup, now see who is actually the best rider.
There is no real way to make it ONLY about the rider for anything but an individual TT. Even old series like IROC that put drivers in the same car, still comes down to teams and strategy not to turns the wheel the best. Strategy like drafting could be considered a skill but wouldn’t be about the riders strength.
Basically I think we all like the idea of an IROC type bike race, but it wouldn’t necessarily be any more exciting to watch. Taking a wild guess that more users of this forum watch F1 than Indy racing.
The irony here is that Merckx used every technological advantage he could at the time to set the hour record. Since a chain was slapped onto a velocipede, riders have sought technological advantages over the competition.
To me, all of that IS a test of strength. Rider skill, power, knowledge, strategy. That is the test of strength. Not who has the biggest budget to build the fastest bike n
Related to this, I find it kind of funny and sad that cycling struggles because of lack of funding but then spend a ton of money on R&D for aero gains or super fancy skin suits.
I know I’m probably missing some finer points, but think of this scenario. UCI bans TT bikes and limits bike design. You get one bike for the bike race. The entire race. You can swap out wheels, run deep sections for flat stages or shallow for climbing days. But you ride the same bike. So now teams don’t have to fly around the world with multiple TT bikes or different models. Saves money. Smaller teams with smaller budgets now have more money to pay riders. Probably evens the playing fields a bit too. Logistically it’s way easier. You can still run traditional TT races as standalone events for guys that want to race them. But now you stop the aero arms race and all that budget for aero R&D gets spent elsewhere. Or god forbid, it causes bike prices for consumers to go down, but who am I kidding?
Don’t get me wrong I agree that strategy and rider skills are a strength. But as long as it is still a team sport then it is still going to come down to who has the most money to make all that stuff work and not the individual even if they were all on the same old tech.
The pro peloton might be on slightly different equipment but basically all equal, so the race is already only coming down to skill and strategy, and then physical strength. Putting them all on 80s Schwinn’s likely would not change any race outcome, it might just take a little longer.
Getting rid of teams and letting people ride the latest tech would actually make it far more interesting to watch. Teams are my least favorite aspect of bike racing, I understand it but don’t like it.
I’ve been saying for a while they should cut the team roster down. So maybe like 4 riders per team. And then allow more teams. Less control over the race. Completely getting rid of teams would be an interesting watch. Less predictable maybe.
The team part of the team is the most expensive part of team cycling, not TT bikes. Want to make it more affordable, ban teams. You’ve got a million plus in buses and cars following around the peloton per team. Couple million in salaries of support staff.
I think it’s all part of the puzzle. I’d be interested to see what it costs for a team to transport everything: bikes, gear, staff. You could probably cut back on a lot. Cut the team cars down to 1. Cut teams down to less riders, which in turn would be less bikes to transport and maintain, less staffing to feed them. Get rid of the massive team buses and use vans or whatever. Less rooms to book at the hotel. I think bikes are a part of that. Visma has 3 or 4 models (TT, S5, R5, maybe Soloist). Cut that down to 1 and maybe you don’t need as big of a team to support it. Less mechanics. Smaller team with only 1 backup bike per rider means you only need 1 team car. I agree that just scaling back teams would save expenses.
Now you say if they save all that money doing the above, teams like Visma or UAE will then just spend more money to buy riders. Which might happen. So I don’t know the answer.
I would love to see the tour go back to guys riding solo all night and dashing into pubs for food and drink, but the massive job losses to all the support that goes into todays massive spectacle would be terrible. It sure is fun to read about those golden days though. I’ll throw out a recommendation for “The First Tour” by Peter Cossins if that stuff interests you.
Oddly enough the logistics of things like the tour or an ironman race interest me more than the racing itself sometimes. Just the thought of what goes into making things happen is fascinating. The team aspect as far as race strategy drafting etc is what doesn’t interest me. Obviously both are happening at the pro end of gravel racing but the lack of teams as we would think of them in something like the tour makes that far more interesting to me.
Basically I wouldn’t be for the job loss etc, but we can’t pretend that bike cost is anything more than a blip on the budget radar for pro level teams. I mean teams are for profit organizations making money off sponsors etc, the equipment in most cases is not even an expense.
This is a really good analogy: I think Indycar is way better than F1, it just has way less visibility–although a big part of that is from the money coming in from manufacturers, and bike and component manufacturers aren’t going to sponsor teams if they’re on spec or near-spec bikes. Plenty of people like this type of idea, but I don’t think anyone knows how to square that circle
I won a ‘NASCAR Experience’ on a raffle hosted by a client, and it was interesting. My opinion of the sport/drivers was heightened because of that day, And my brother was so jelly… He is so into NASCAR, he has Dale Earnhardt’s signature across his back, and blew so much money on Earnhardt swag, couldn’t afford to attend our mom’s funeral.
And now my opinion of NASCAR has changed, because then it was unnerving to see the wall approach out the right window, but now, NASCAR is more, to me, about riding around in a noisy smelly loud environment wasting machine, burning it all down with every lap. It’s time for it to end, IMO. OR go full EV… The EV industry would benefit I’m sure if they did. Unpopular opinion, NASCAR is ridiculous and needs to end. It ALL needs to end. F1 needs to die, as it’s just a uber rich person’s sport. (Although they did have to improve some of the roads in the cities where it’s run.
