Hi Rob, RE: Can technology be classed as a cheating method as it gains the rider an advantage, in the same way as substance doping? Is riding the TDF geared as opposed to on a singlspeed cheating? Looking at a TDF route gears definitely give a significant advantage, if only one team were allowed gears and everyone else ran singlespeeds I would class that as cheating, but then you get into legal definitions as to what is significant. However cycling has been going for over 100 years and I don't think there are any amazing technological breakthroughs that will give massive performance advantages. Look at team Sky, a big team with huge resources, but I can't think of any groundbreaking single discoveries they have made that give a major advantage. Instead they are looking at marginal gains such as air flow around seamless skinsuits, nutritional analysis and even bedding for riders, nothing major on its own but they seem convinced the accumulative effect of tiny gains can yield worthwhile improvements. Innovation may not be free but all are free to innovate (within the UCI regs), if another team thinks there may be merit in what Sky have done they can copy it.
Smaller teams may not be able to do everything the big boys do but thats the nature of competetive sports, there are big fish and little fish in all sports. As such a level playing field does'nt really exist but it should be the job of the governing body to ensure it is level enough to give the little guys a chance of winning. I'd like to think anything that massively enhances the chance of success but was hugely cost prohibitive so only 1 or 2 teams could afford it would be outlawed. F1 is increasingly doing this with fewer engine manufacturers and trying to reduce costs to help the smaller teams. Afterall sport that is not competetive isn't fun to watch. The technology in terms of the bikes and components are affordable by all the pro teams, I guess kit choice is mostly dictated by sponsors first, followed by experience and personal preference, so there is no real advantage on the tech front, many bikes are made in the same factories but just with different stickers and the components are just different brands of the same things.
Having said that the thought of the sponsor having an overriding say on equipment over team experience and personal preference rankles with me, maybe as I'm a middle aged cynic often annoyed with the modern world, but it seems wrong to me that marketing and branding are more important than actual performance. I'm not a massive fan of pro cycling but I was aware that Wiggins and others had big issues with digital shifting this year that cost them time over the traditional alternatives, and seemingly offered little, if any, performance benefit. I'm sure this was'nt mentioned as a possibility by the fancy suited marketing person/sponsor. Was'nt there some other problem with Wiggins not being allowed to use his favoured oval Rotor chainrings in a race this year? When you talk of technology in cycling taking over the sport, do you mean just pro level racing or does that include leisure cyclists? If Wiggins' brand new bike maintained daily by the team mechanic breaks he can just throw it down a ravine and get another one from the team car, if I had a Di2 bike and I'm out on a ride on my own in December cold and wind and the shifting breaks, I don't have that option and I'm not going to be a happy bunny.
I'm less concerned by weight and looks and more by reliability and so are most cyclists.
There is no denying the advances in cycling over the years and the obvious trickle down effect of technology from the pro peloton to the general cycling public. The TDF is a cycle marketers dream and some R&D is done during the race. Despite this, I still feel a cynicism about the claims of the marketing department and I don't really share their drive to constantly buy the newest latest thing but I pick and chose. I don't own a carbon fibre bike (if someone wants to give me one I'll happily give one a go) but have invested in index shifters and dual pivot brakes. I've had fancy wheels with low spoke counts but found them more trouble than they were worth and have reverted back to simpler longer lasting wheels. And I'm clearly not alone, steel frames are still being made and some people still swear 8 or 9 speed lasts longer and shift more reliably than the current crop of 11 speeds. There are even some people still riding penny farthings, so I don't think technology in cycling is taking over the sport, there is room for all of us. Its easy to lose sight of the fact on dedicated cycling forums but the majority of cyclists are simply not that bothered by the latest cycling developments and just cycle to get from A-B, or to help them get and keep fit. Affordability has always been one of the key benefits to cycling, most of us cannot afford or would never consider spending £8000 on a bike. If people want to thats great, good for them, and I'm glad there is such a wide range of choice available, but the majority of cyclists exist at the other end of the spectrum and the bike manufacturers know this. There may be a high end technological warfare between bike brands but this is aimed at the top 1-2% of cyclists, we've all encountered bike and kit snobbery but you don't need an expensive bike or kit to become a better cyclist. And what is a better cyclist and does everyone want to become one? Cycling will not become an elitist sport any time soon. Therefore I don't think there is a danger of people losing interest in the sport as the majority of cyclists don't have an interest in it in the first place.
I'm a keen cyclist that rides pretty much everyday but Chris Froome riding my rubbish bike will still thrash me riding his bike, which shows that overall the single most important element to pro cycling success is the cellular organism sat on the saddle. You've only got to look at the very long history of doping in cycling to see the significance and benefits rider doping gives, and with such big benefits and rewards doping seems destined to feature in cyclings future too.
Which brings me to thinking about overlaps between the technological advantage and substance doping. As already stated I don't think there are dramatic improvements available to the bike, which means that any future technological avances will focus on getting the best out of the human element, but isn't that what doping is? Where is one stopping and the other one starting? We have a blood passport to detect doping but is technology not already being used to monitor and manipulate blood values? If technology is doing the testing, surely technology can also be developed to beat the testing. It seems to me teams can dope to pre-agreed 'acceptable' levels. Following the Lance Armstrong fraud we now know that never testing positive does not equate to did not dope. In theory Sky's marginal gains could all be complete guff and the recent results Sky have achieved could just as easily be explained by undetected doping.
OMG
I've written all that offline and its only now I've uploaded it I've seen how long it is, that must read as an epic Tour de Bore so sorry about that. I'm no expert in any of this and am just thinking out loud but due to the pesky infiltration of technology into my life I am able to voice this rambling across the whole world, for better or worse you decide, but I hope you can pick something of use out of that.
