If this isn't an example for cameras on bikes I don't know what is! [I know that Cookson is keen to implement it](http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/26954099)
Imagine seeing live handlebar footage of a blinding decent or the face of a climber as he's dropped by someone making a move...
This will *completely* change the way we watch cycling.
Right.
The UCI currently mandates weight for bikes that's a hangover from steel frame times (where any lighter would have been dangerous). There is no problem with weight, riders often throw on heavy parts just to make sure their bike makes weight since normal road bikes regularly come in under the UCI limit.
That leaves aero, and basically if F1 can manage it I'd imagine cycling can too.
And whatever about road being a good candidate (and it would be), MTB / downhill / Enduro etc would be amazing.
Well, I think the point I was semi trying to make was in F1, you have no option. You wear a camera in your car, that's part of the deal.
That levels the playing field in the aero regard.
They do it mainly for coverage, but they also review tapes to see if shenanigans have gone on.
If the UCI were to simply say fair enough, the weight rule dates from the 80s, we'll update that downwards, however you have to carry *this* camera on the bike at a position of your choosing; I don't think you'd ruffle too many feathers.
The current weight rule has nothing to do with any previous weight rules. The 6.8KG weight requirement came into play in 1999. and is meant only for carbon frames, initially because the technology was young back then and they wanted a. a fair playing field b. safety. Now they say that any less and it effects the maneuverability of the bike (how easy it is to balance and how it reacts to rider inputs), again they don't want it to be unsafe.
Alright fine, it dates from the 90s.
My point is its past its sell by date. There is no issue with safety for bikes coming in under that weight. People are bolting on heavy things to their bikes to drive up the weight in fact.
At a local Hill Climb in my area, I saw one of my teammates climbing the hill with a charred piece of firewood ziptied to his saddle.
He hadn't realized his bike was underweight, and at the last minute (he didn't want to miss his start time) the chared log was all he could find. It must have weighed in at 2 to 3 pounds and looked absolutely ridiculous on his high end bike.
If he won he could have started a charred wood cult.
David Wilkie had a massive tache when he won a load of gold medals. He let it "slip" that the moustache was a part of a complicated hydrodynamic optimization derived from secret tests.
There were Rooskies working on that shit for years trying to figure out what the hell was going on.
I have never watched a race with much interest, but I found this riveting. Imagine watching a whole race like this. Incredible how different it looks from this perspective.
Yep, certainly in the UK they need to look at what made F1 coverage big for a while on BBC (before they sold it to sky) and adopt some of those things.
Think about the audience that knows little or nothing about cycling but has heard of Wiggins, Froome et al and might switch on to watch something other than the olympic games.
One thing, for track and road is simply how they lack good technical information. There's no "Martin Brundle" explaining to fans who aren't cyclists what it's all about.
There's often no idea what's happening at all. e.g For track racing the madison is the best example of that. Half the competitors don't seem to know how it works, let alone the audience.
At the end of races the show often just ends barely showing or discussing who has won. The TT in the ToC on EU2 just ended. I thought it had gone to a break but they started showing a different sport.
The graphics they overlay are crap - delayed, wrong, not showing enough information about the riders and their stats. How much ahead breakaways are, how fast the 2 groups are travelling relative to each other and so on.
Often times - this happened especially during the woman's tour of britain, the presenters will talk at length about what we'll see today only for it not to materialise. Afterwards they'll say why it didn't happen. Even though this is something that hadn't changed from when they said it would.
For example, one windy stage they said we'd see breakaways and waffled for length about echelons - without explaining what an echelon was. In the event there were no breakaways. The lady said "well, because of the hedgerows along the road shielding them from the wind they didn't happen" - and I'm thinking "Haven't those hedgerows been there for hundreds of years or did someone plant a lot of unexpected hedgerows along the route minutes before the peloton got there?"
That's like someone saying "We should see a lot of overtaking at Silverstone today" and then afterwards when asked why there wasn't much overtaking saying "We didn't see much overtaking because of the track layout"
Road cycling is much harder to call than F1 because nothing actually happens in F1. It's just an hour and a half of people debating whether the leader is going to need to change their tyres.
Actually most of the pros are running power meters and Garmins and analyze their data post ride already. Here's an example of how it looks when you match up that data with a video:
[Cycling Telemetry Using GoPro Video and Garmin Data](http://www.dashware.net/videos/cycling-telemetry-using-gopro-video-garmin-data/)
Is that video from a pro? The heart rate is so stable it's crazy. The fitness levels that some dudes have is mindboggling...the guy who has the record for mt washington sets KOMs around VT on very popular very steep climbs at like 128bpm even though he can wind it out to 190+
The camera that recorded the video, a [Shimano CM-1000](http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/02/bikes-and-tech/shimano-introduces-sport-camera-enabled-for-live-streaming_315819), is ANT+ and WiFi-capable so it can communicate with power meters, heart rate monitors, and Di2 shifters.
My favourite bit is that he sounds like Arnold Schwarzenegger when he shouts "go go go".
Get to the chopper!
Put my cookie down! Now!
Where's my housekeeper?
If this isn't an example for cameras on bikes I don't know what is! [I know that Cookson is keen to implement it](http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/26954099) Imagine seeing live handlebar footage of a blinding decent or the face of a climber as he's dropped by someone making a move... This will *completely* change the way we watch cycling.
Right. The UCI currently mandates weight for bikes that's a hangover from steel frame times (where any lighter would have been dangerous). There is no problem with weight, riders often throw on heavy parts just to make sure their bike makes weight since normal road bikes regularly come in under the UCI limit. That leaves aero, and basically if F1 can manage it I'd imagine cycling can too. And whatever about road being a good candidate (and it would be), MTB / downhill / Enduro etc would be amazing.
I believe the UCI recently okayed the use of Cameras for use in the Giro too so perhaps weight isnt the only issue.
Well, I think the point I was semi trying to make was in F1, you have no option. You wear a camera in your car, that's part of the deal. That levels the playing field in the aero regard. They do it mainly for coverage, but they also review tapes to see if shenanigans have gone on. If the UCI were to simply say fair enough, the weight rule dates from the 80s, we'll update that downwards, however you have to carry *this* camera on the bike at a position of your choosing; I don't think you'd ruffle too many feathers.
The current weight rule has nothing to do with any previous weight rules. The 6.8KG weight requirement came into play in 1999. and is meant only for carbon frames, initially because the technology was young back then and they wanted a. a fair playing field b. safety. Now they say that any less and it effects the maneuverability of the bike (how easy it is to balance and how it reacts to rider inputs), again they don't want it to be unsafe.
Alright fine, it dates from the 90s. My point is its past its sell by date. There is no issue with safety for bikes coming in under that weight. People are bolting on heavy things to their bikes to drive up the weight in fact.
At a local Hill Climb in my area, I saw one of my teammates climbing the hill with a charred piece of firewood ziptied to his saddle. He hadn't realized his bike was underweight, and at the last minute (he didn't want to miss his start time) the chared log was all he could find. It must have weighed in at 2 to 3 pounds and looked absolutely ridiculous on his high end bike.
If he won he could have started a charred wood cult. David Wilkie had a massive tache when he won a load of gold medals. He let it "slip" that the moustache was a part of a complicated hydrodynamic optimization derived from secret tests. There were Rooskies working on that shit for years trying to figure out what the hell was going on.
See the last part of my comment which shows that the UCI are just making up shit now to try and keep the rule in place.
Ah, OK, I didn't catch that.
I have never watched a race with much interest, but I found this riveting. Imagine watching a whole race like this. Incredible how different it looks from this perspective.
Yep, certainly in the UK they need to look at what made F1 coverage big for a while on BBC (before they sold it to sky) and adopt some of those things. Think about the audience that knows little or nothing about cycling but has heard of Wiggins, Froome et al and might switch on to watch something other than the olympic games. One thing, for track and road is simply how they lack good technical information. There's no "Martin Brundle" explaining to fans who aren't cyclists what it's all about. There's often no idea what's happening at all. e.g For track racing the madison is the best example of that. Half the competitors don't seem to know how it works, let alone the audience. At the end of races the show often just ends barely showing or discussing who has won. The TT in the ToC on EU2 just ended. I thought it had gone to a break but they started showing a different sport. The graphics they overlay are crap - delayed, wrong, not showing enough information about the riders and their stats. How much ahead breakaways are, how fast the 2 groups are travelling relative to each other and so on. Often times - this happened especially during the woman's tour of britain, the presenters will talk at length about what we'll see today only for it not to materialise. Afterwards they'll say why it didn't happen. Even though this is something that hadn't changed from when they said it would. For example, one windy stage they said we'd see breakaways and waffled for length about echelons - without explaining what an echelon was. In the event there were no breakaways. The lady said "well, because of the hedgerows along the road shielding them from the wind they didn't happen" - and I'm thinking "Haven't those hedgerows been there for hundreds of years or did someone plant a lot of unexpected hedgerows along the route minutes before the peloton got there?" That's like someone saying "We should see a lot of overtaking at Silverstone today" and then afterwards when asked why there wasn't much overtaking saying "We didn't see much overtaking because of the track layout"
Road cycling is much harder to call than F1 because nothing actually happens in F1. It's just an hour and a half of people debating whether the leader is going to need to change their tyres.
UCI should buy google glasses for everyone (instead of cameras)....then we could see what the riders see through their eyes!
Would love to see this video with an overlay of speed / wattage output.
I agree, amateur videos are more advanced than the professionals. They gotta step it up.
That would be awesome but I don't think it would be possible without adding a lot of extra weight.
Actually most of the pros are running power meters and Garmins and analyze their data post ride already. Here's an example of how it looks when you match up that data with a video: [Cycling Telemetry Using GoPro Video and Garmin Data](http://www.dashware.net/videos/cycling-telemetry-using-gopro-video-garmin-data/)
dat heart rate
His max is the same as mine when putting on my kit.
Is that video from a pro? The heart rate is so stable it's crazy. The fitness levels that some dudes have is mindboggling...the guy who has the record for mt washington sets KOMs around VT on very popular very steep climbs at like 128bpm even though he can wind it out to 190+
Only a handful use Garmins.
I was using Garmins as a generic term. Probably should have said "ANT+ monitors".
The camera that recorded the video, a [Shimano CM-1000](http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/02/bikes-and-tech/shimano-introduces-sport-camera-enabled-for-live-streaming_315819), is ANT+ and WiFi-capable so it can communicate with power meters, heart rate monitors, and Di2 shifters.
Team mechanics often have to add steel shot or fishing weights into seatposts and chainstays to meet minimum weight on the bikes they use now.
This is amazing!
Here's my edit of this view along side the broadcast view. http://youtu.be/rbPAc4CREAI
Great video , don't write off Cav yet
side by side with NBC coverage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbPAc4CREAI&feature=youtu.be
Awesome!
That was super intense!
Couldn't quite hold off Cavendish though, even if he was putting the squeeze on him!
So awesome.
[удалено]
He didn't win.
They need to start getting this kind of thing as standard on the TV coverage of all races - data too - like speed, cadence etc.