Motorists vs Cyclists on the Roads

South Australia has implemented a minimum passing distance law for cyclists effective as at the 25th of October 2015. In doing so, the State Government has followed Queensland's lead. I've been meaning to put my thoughts on cycling safety down in writing for a while, and this seems like a good moment.

Firstly, this law has reminded us that public debates on the internet are fairly unproductive. On a polarising topic; there will be two sides and no winners. Very few people seem to accept reason or logic; and the challenge to their views only causes them to defend them ever more ferociously. So I ask that you keep an open mind while reading this - I'm not trying to assault your views!

Secondly, these are my opinions and my opinions only. I know that they certainly do not represent the broad cycling public.

Thirdly, I feel that this whole issue arises because humans remember the bad behaviour as opposed to the good. I have very few issues with cyclists while I'm driving. I was taking note of inconsiderate or dangerous drivers while both commuting and training, and without recording details, I suspect 99.8% of drivers do the right thing and don't endanger me.

Onto the broader aspects of the debate.

Personally, I don't think that imposing a minimum passing distance will change all that much. Most drivers do the right thing. But, how do you measure a metre on the road? I can only assume that warnings will be given to those who "might be a bit" close, but only those drivers being truly reckless will be fined. And I feel that only the truly reckless should be - I don't need a full metre clearance to feel safe while being overtaken. If a driver is smooth about the pass, half of that can be enough. But that's just my opinion. Not everyone is as comfortable on a bike in traffic.

The second issue is that of vehicle safety - yes it is now legal to overtake when there are double white lines; but is that really a good idea? If some common sense is applied (by drivers, cyclists and police) everyone should be able to get along.

When I'm riding on narrow roads by myself, I stick to the left as much as possible. When I'm with others, we listen out for cars from behind and do our best not to slow them down. If I'm holding up a car approaching a blind right-hand corner and I can see around it better than the driver; I'll wave them through or hold up a hand to indicate that it's not safe depending on the circumstances. Yes, I can legally ride two abreast, but again, is that really a good idea? Often the answer is a firm "no". Some common courtesy doesn't go astray, and we all have our own reasons to be on the roads. I'm going to try to get along with everyone who's considerate out there!

There is a big push from the comments sections for cyclists to be registered as well. But the simple fact is that it's not going to happen. Where do you begin? With the 12- and 13-year-olds riding to school? Would the cost of registration be proportional to the damage inflicted (based on power and weight) to the roads? If so, that's a negligible amount. Would "rego" have cumbersome number plates with it? Where do the plates go when you consider the various bike geometries? How would licences (so I would have my Cycling Australia licence, a drivers' licence, and a state-issued cycling licence?) be applied? Should there be a test to qualify? Who covers the cost of that - because driving licences are issued by the Government and paid for by the individual. The 12- or 13-year old? Could I ride a bike if I were suspended from driving? Suddenly, a casual Saturday ride to stay fit can't be done on a whim, and would arguably increase the stress on the health system as a long-term consequence of inactivity; due to deterrents such as extra cost and a rego plate "being less aero, brah!" Registering cyclists is currently a long, long way away.

Oh, and subtly in there as well is a law that cyclists can now legally ride on the footpath. Except that again, it's not a very smart idea to. Ideally, there should be a speed restriction on this law - I see why it's there when bike riders don't want to mix themselves with cars; but if I ever take up the option, my riding will be done at a pace that doesn't endanger any pedestrians (i.e., at walking pace!).

On top of the broad arguments; there have been some specific concerns raised by some motorists, and I'd like to take a moment to touch on them.

Uploaded to Facebook

This image has been doing the rounds. Firstly, the argument is that they are 4 abreast - if you look closely though, they aren't! They are just a terrible two abreast. A laughable, dangerous, terrible two abreast. This enrages both motorists and fellow cyclists, trust me.

But, this image being bandied about as evidence is somewhat funny. Allow me to explain: they appear to be on carbon bikes and full custom kit, and are behaving this poorly on the road while carrying a few kilos too many, with questionable riding positions. This suggests that the riders have sufficient disposable income to afford an expensive bike to ride once a week. Sufficient disposable income suggests a higher-than-average paying job. A higher-than-average paying job means higher-than-average income tax. Tax (not registration, geez!) pays for the roads. Which means that these guys are likely paying more for the roads' upkeep than the average angry motorist!

Another argument is that there is "no onus" on cyclists under the new laws. Legally, maybe not. But everyone knows who will come off second-best in a collision. An onus is on the cyclists not to put themselves in a position where they might die. Given the choice between a trip to hospital with serious injury (or worse, the morgue) or a $345 fine, I'd prefer the fine! This, in my mind, is a very selfish argument that doesn't view a cyclist as human.

"Peanuts should get off the road!" What's the alternative mode of transport? You might think several cyclists hold you up on your drive to work, but imagine if they were also in cars. You're advocating traffic congestion. Think these things through.

"Make them pay rego before introducing new laws." So you want mandatory registration without introducing laws? That one lacks logic too.

As sarcastic and patronising as I became there, cycling safety is a huge, genuine issue. Cyclists and motorists alike are humans, with feelings, breakable bones, jobs and families. The social media rage tends to forget this aspect. What I really want first and foremost is a greater amount of respect for all road users, from all road users. If you're not willing to consider that, I'll leave you with the words of one Gil Slade on one such thread - "When I got a licence I was made aware of the rights of cyclists. If I had a problem with that then I had the choice to not get a licence......." Anyone - ANYONE - who has an insurmountable issue with other road users always has the choice to not use the road.

Motos vs Cyclists at a Professional Level

Anyone who has been on a recreational bike ride (or driven!) around a metropolitan area (at least in Australia) probably knows about the feud between cyclists and motorists. I'll cover that topic in a separate post soon. But such a discussion shouldn't be happening at a professional level, in the WorldTour no less; where there is motorbike accreditation, and crucially, closed roads! But it has been brought to the forefront of the cycling public consciousness due to the motorbike incidents (yes, plural!) involving Tinkoff-Saxo riders Peter Sagan and Sergio Paulinho in this year's Vuelta a Espana.

Sergio Paulinho after his incident with a motorbike in the Vuelta
(Image: http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2015/09/02/2/bettiniphoto_0220874_1_full_670.jpg)

I would put them down to unfortunate circumstances and one-off incidents, but crashes caused by vehicles in pro cycling races seem to be becoming more frequent. Looking further back, high profile incidents have included Jakob Fulgsang recently in the Tour de France (and very nearly Ryder Hesjedal from the previous group on the same climb), the Shimano service vehicles in the Tour of Flanders, and a moto crash into spectators at Paris-Roubaix, all occurring this year. Other infamous incidents include Nicki Sorensen being dragged along behind a moto in the Tour de France; and the Johnny Hoogerland/Juan Antonio Flecha incident with a French TV car and a barbed wire fence from 2011.

So, there is a problem. But now there needs to be a solution. So far, ASO, RCS, and Flanders Classics (the organising bodies of the afore-mentioned races) have kicked the drivers out of the race with a suggestion that they don't apply to drive in the races again. This solution was acceptable when they were isolated incidents. As these incidents become more prevalent however; it stands to reason that the incoming drivers will be inexperienced in navigating races. If a higher proportion of moto riders are inexperienced, the racing becomes more dangerous, and further incidents become more likely. This could end up being a vicious (and harmful) cycle. I don't see booting all offending pilots from the races as a decent long-term solution.

So what do I see as a decent long-term solution? Firstly, reducing the number of motorbikes that operate in the midst of the race. TV cameras are important, yes. Photography adds visual aid to the reports and draws interest, so at least one is necessary. I don't have a magic number (and it will vary race-to-race anyway), but I believe that the organisers of all races (especially the biggest on the calendar) need to review the quantity of motorbikes and cars in between the groups within the race. I can only assume that accreditation is paid for, but how many of the incidents like these can be classed as (in the words of the UCI fine issued to Peter Sagan) "behaviour which damages the image of cycling"? If the safety of the riders; and having the best riders remaining in the race to create spectacle is what the organisers want; they should review their policies to create fewer potential fast-moving hazards.

I'll admit, asking promoters to potentially reduce the money that they can make might be a bit optimistic. So I have a second idea to suggest - ensure that the moto pilots and car drivers understand how cyclists act (cornering, swinging off of the front, the swirling of the peloton etc.) and how races unfold. This can be done with extensive (and I mean extensive!) training for those who haven't been involved in cycling; or by using retired riders to pilot, after they have done sufficient training handling motorbikes. I've heard an anecdote from an Australian NRS race of a trained police motorcyclist impeding the race to a greater degree than the photographer's regular driver, who is a trained cyclist. Furthermore, it appears that professional team cars (generally driven by directeur sportifs who are retired professionals) have fewer collisions with the competitors as well; although that might also be due to them not often needing to move through groups. Drivers and pilots with a strong understanding of the race and the cycling environment may just create a safer environment for current cyclists by knowing when and how to stay out of the way.

In the meantime, I know that these suggestions certainly won't be taken into account this season, and possibly not at all; so I continue to wish for all cyclists' safety until something genuine is done to curb the occurrence of these incidents. Even in the current era (probably the best so far to be a professional), the safety of the cyclists seems to be a secondary priority. Personally, I don't find such a situation to be acceptable. Racers at all levels should be able to race without worrying about being knocked off by motorbikes. I hope for their sake that something changes and they won't need to consider it a possibility.

Wiggo’s Monumental Chance to be Legendary

Ah, April. My favourite time of the cycling year. Roubaix is the highlight, but Flanders, Amstel and Fleche Wallone are right up there as well (personally, I’m not a massive fan of Liege). In the lead up to the cobbled Classics, the name of Sir Bradley Wiggins has been thrown around the media a lot. Understandably so, and I will explain why his attempt at Roubaix holds just so much interest for me.

Should Sir Bradley win Roubaix (and it’s definitely not beyond him!), he would be the first to be able to claim both Roubaix and Tour de France wins since Bernard Hinault in 1981. He would be the first to claim Roubaix and ANY Grand Tour since Sean Kelly won the Vuelta a Espana in 1988. He would be the second ever to win Roubaix as a current World Time Trial Champion after Cancellara in 2010. And, perhaps predictably, the first British rider to win the thing. Sir Bradley is reportedly a scholar of the sport, and respects the history. He is likely to know all of these stats.

 

Being a rider who has wins in both Roubaix and the Tour de France is almost mythical these days. The 2014 winner of the Tour de France was Vincenzo Nibali, who races at roughly 65kg. The 2013 winner was Chris Froome at roughly 71kg. Contador was a favourite both years at 66kg. The two perennial favourites for the cobbled Classics are Tom Boonen (82kg), and Fabian Cancellara (81kg), although neither is racing this spring because of injury. These are huge weight difference in cycling terms. The Tour is all about power-to-weight (gravity comes into play in the mountains), while Roubaix needs quantity of power to push a large gear over rough roads, and enough weight to not be thrown off of the road by the bumps. However, the honour roll of Paris-Roubaix has some names that also feature in the Tour de France throughout history. Once the Pyrenees were added to the Tour de France; Sylvére Maes (1930’s), Fausto Coppi (1940’s/1950’s), Louison Bobet (1950’s), Felice Gimondi (1960’s), Jan Janssen (late 1960’s), Eddy Merckx (late 1960’s – 1970’s) and Bernard Hinault (late 1970’s – 1980’s) have won both races (and only Bobet and Merckx have won de Ronde as well). No one in the 1990’s or 2000’s has even been a favourite to win both. Until now.

 

Three TdF winners - three riders weighing less than 71kg each
Image credit: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/06/article-2650930-1E857FAC00000578-411_634x433.jpg

 

So, why is “Wiggo” so well poised to win both when no one in the recent past has? The easy answer is that he has chosen to put on weight in order to win the World Time Trial Championships and Roubaix. More muscle mass (when put on correctly) means more power. But it’s more than that. We, as a society, understand that more muscle mass can mean more power. We understand that glycogen is burnt and sweat is produced during exertion, and have taken steps to counter these losses through nutrition and hydration. We understand the aerodynamic drag equation and how to improve performance by reducing drag (just look at the Hour Record attempts this year!), and live in an age where sports science and sports engineering are genuine and financially viable careers. And Team Sky have made all of the noises about being at the forefront of sports science in the cycling world. Chris Froome was criticised for looking at the SRM on his stem too much in 2013; the 2012 Sky team was accused of creating a boring race to watch by basing their riding on vertical ascent speed and power numbers. Recently, Sky’s classics team tried to debunk the “best way to train for racing is by racing” myth, instead training at altitude throughout early spring. Races are getting harder to win, as teams prepare (not the euphemism it once was) their riders better.

 

The sport itself has evolved with the prevalence of sports science. The teams couldn’t spend the money if the money wasn’t there. Some teams (Oleg Tinkov, I’m talking about you) are funded by philanthropist businessmen who like cycling, but others are run entirely on sponsors’ budgets (Jean-René Bernaudeau, I’m talking about your Europcar team). If the budget is tight, finding the money to invest in the latest technology will be like squeezing water out of a rock. But in a lot of cases, teams can develop their sports science to improve performance because, as a general rule, the money and interest is there for it. Consequently, the competition is tighter, and riders have started to focus on one race a year (Indurain probably started the trend in the 1990’s) and peak for that race, in order to qualify their sponsor's investment with success. This creates more competition at the elite end of the sport.

 

As a comparison, Jean Bobet (Louison Bobet’s brother) described racing in the 1950’s as being subject to the wishes of “The G4” of Louison Bobet, Fausto Coppi, Ferdi Kubler and Hugo Koblet, who almost dictated who could and couldn’t attack or win races. Rik van Steenbergen was also at the top of the sport, but reportedly wasn’t included in the “club” of top riders. The riders who weren’t at the top of the sport were racing for temporary contracts and appearance fees – Andrea Carrea, a team-mate of Coppi’s, paid a large chunk of his house off by taking fees at criteriums after one day in the yellow jersey.

 

The division of earnings is now far more level in the men’s peloton, as riders prepare for different races. I mention this because at that stage of cycling, the races were likely to be won by one of the G4 or van Steenbergen. These days, well over a dozen different names are genuine contenders for the genuinely big races (Contador, Froome, Nibali, Quintana; Valverde, Gerrans, Kwiatkowski, Dan Martin, Gilbert; Boonen, Cancellara, Sagan, Terpstra, Stybar, Thomas, Wiggins; Cavendish, Kittel, Degenkolb, Greipel, Kristoff, etc). Bernard Hinault’s criticism of the top GC riders not targeting Classics a few years ago was a bit unfair in my opinion, due to the expansion and specificity of the targets in the sport these days. Back in the 20^th century, riders could target multiple different styles of racing but these days, there is too much investment (and subsequently, risk of being under-prepared for other races), and the technology being available to more riders has created a more level playing field (to some extent).

 

So, should Wiggins win Roubaix (or Flanders) in the mud and rain – or dust – and cobbles, less than three years after riding to glory through summer sunshine in the Alps; it would be a phenomenal achievement, due to the number of different rider physiologies in the sport, and quantity of contenders that he will have beaten across both races. He claimed that he wanted to be remembered as a legend of the sport, and should he end his career with World and Olympic Time Trial titles, track World and Olympic gold, several short stage races, a Tour de France, AND a cobbled Classic (not to mention maybe the Hour Record), I believe that there is no rider with a wider and more impressive palmarés in the past 30 years, due to the diversity of his wins.

 

At that point, in terms of wins and character, he can reasonably be compared to Miguel Indurain, Louison Bobet, or even Bernard Hinault and Fausto Coppi. As a legend of the sport.

Reservations of Relegations and Promotion Pessimism

Recently there was an article written by Al Hinds that compared and contrasted the drama and intrigue of the English Premier League (and lower tiers) to the structure of cycling. It gave readers the highs and lows of the season, revoked memories for those who have followed it; and illustrated the appeal of the game to those who don’t follow it. The basis of this argument was the relegation battle, which (for the teams who survive it) is worth millions of pounds, and a great amount of exposure and prestige; and the comparison to cycling, which has a structure that rewards cash, not results. As an example, Team BMC are assured a WorldTour place, despite one Grand Tour win and zero Monuments. However, BMC have the money. Katusha have the money. Oleg Tinkov has the money for Tinkoff-Saxo (though the Russian economic crisis briefly cast doubt over that); and all of these teams are missing Monuments or Grand Tour victories in the last few seasons. Astana have the money and a WorldTour licence, despite a dubious doping record. Wildcard teams for Grand Tours and Monuments are fairly predictable each year. So went the article. This led me to consider the practical implications of such an idealistic concept.

 

 Firstly, let us assume that each team riding in 2014 (you’ll see why I haven’t used 2015 soon…) is a recognisable brand that has stable, substantial revenue; and brand longevity. Most cycling teams are short-term affairs in terms of world sport (think Milram, Barloworld, Unibet, and so far, Greenedge) when compared to the 100+ year histories of Manchester United, Real Madrid, or even Collingwood and Carlton. The NBA has teams nearly 70 years old. Conversely, cycling’s oldest well-known team structure is the Reynolds team from Spain, created for 1980. You might not recognise the Reynolds name, but they delivered Pedro Delgado and Miguel Indurain to six Tours de France under the name ibanesto; Valverde to a Liege-Bastogne-Liege as Caisse d’Epargne, and more recently Nairo Quintana to a Giro victory as Movistar. Even one of the elder statesmen of teams in Etixx-Quickstep is only 12 years old this year. This is a consequence of the lack of money available in cycling as a world sport when compared to football, or local interest in the NBA or AFL. But, let’s ignore this and assume that each cycling squad is indeed defined as a team that merely has sponsorship, as opposed to a sponsorship defining the existence of a team.

 

 If a relegation/promotion system was in place for the 2015 season, based on the 2014 UCI points rankings, it wouldn’t be a totally different ball game. If the bottom three WorldTour teams were relegated and replaced by the highest-scoring three ProContinental teams, we would have lost Europcar (who are ProContinental anyway due to a lack of financial guarantees), Cannondale (due to Sagan moving away and who have merged anyway; hence my reluctance to assume 2015 teams for my analysis), and FDJ.fr, who delivered a rider onto the podium of the Tour de France and stage wins in the Giro d’Italia (though Bouhanni’s points wouldn’t have counted once he moved to Cofidis). The promoted teams would be Topsport-Vlaanderen (who are focussed on the Flandrian region), Wanty – Groupe Gobert (they almost won Paris-Tours, right?) and Cofidis. While the teams hypothetically relegated haven’t made a massive difference to the 2015 WorldTour; with all due respect, I don’t consider the promoted teams a strong set of additions to a calendar that includes races in Australia and Canada, where interest in Flandrian teams is minimal. The highest-ranked Asian team is Tabriz Petrochemical Team, while MTN-Qhubeka (one of the more exciting ProContintal teams) would have been ranked 42^nd in line for promotion – a reflection on the races contested in the local region more than outright ability. IAM Cycling were fifth on the list, for those wondering. The stacked and prestigious European schedule is perpetuating the balance towards European teams; but the simple fix is to open up points to teams competing in all categories on all continents (so MTN-Qhubeka takes points for Milan-San Remo despite being African-registered, for example). This creates more problems as teams might enter as many races as possible around the world and over-reach their budgets; but does eliminate the bias towards the European teams. This is certainly an issue that would need to be looked at in more detail were such a system implemented.

 

 The loss of points associated with Sagan and Bouhanni from their 2014 teams indicates that a points restructure is needed; however also that for the teams to be sustainable, this restructuring (which is before the UCI now) needs to reward teams for points, not individual riders. The current climate, which has base salaries and endorsements as opposed to criterium and track contracts earning the majority of a rider’s salary; and a rider’s value being judged on points alone does little to warrant loyalty to riders, and subsequently riders to teams. But, can you reward riders who finish 20 minutes back equally to those who win? Should you ignore the domestique’s role in the team? It’s a conundrum.

 

 If a team was promoted, and was afforded a windfall in the same manner as an English football team, it would certainly increase the quality of the racing overall. More money will lead to better riders and a more competitive free agency system than is currently in place. It will become more of a “seller’s market” as opposed to some riders (like Jani Brajkovic or Steele von Hoff) scratching for a ride in the WorldTour. A team gets promoted; they will need riders who have proven themselves at WorldTour level. This will lead to better working conditions for the riders. However, this relies on the cash being in the sport to recruit and pay the riders, and for a team like Topsport to send their riders outside of Flanders and France; and all the way to Canada or Australia. This is a big, big sticking point, and it comes back to the idealism of the concept. If the money was there, the race to sign out-of-contract super-domestiques to be leaders would be aggressive, and I believe that it would incentivise riders to show just how super they can be as domestiques, in the vein (no pun intended) of Roberto Heras or Floyd Landis, who landed contracts to lead their future teams on the back of their performances in service of Lance Armstrong. The doling of money to promoted teams would be the responsibility of the UCI, however I’m not even convinced that any money that the UCI can stockpile should be spent on the elite, so much as the local levels around the world.

 

 Before this is implemented in the WorldTour, the first step is to test it on the Wildcard places for the Grand Tours. This relies on ASO, RCS Sport, or any other promoter agreeing with the UCI, which hasn’t always been the case. RCS already has a spot lined up for the highest-ranked Italian team for the Giro, but it has gone to the same team (the Androni set-up) for the past few seasons. The obvious problem with this is the prestige associated with the biggest races; and the patriotic nature of the organisers, who wish to give French teams a place in French races (which, given the globalisation of the sport is fair enough). And this is where it gets sticky again. The big races were created for publicity. They still exist for publicity. The promoters run the races, the UCI runs the sport. The division of revenue has created political standoffs previously, and for the UCI to fund a system that may remove local teams from their local races will likely cause more disagreements; as well as maybe prompting sponsors to baulk at the prospect of missing their preferred races several times in a multi-year contract. This is certainly another issue that would need examining.

 

 I honestly believe that the promotion/relegation system is a fantastic concept. Honestly, I really do, despite the negativity that I have outlined here. Such a system would create interest at the lower end of the WorldTour, in races such as Paris-Tours or the Tour of Lombardy which have lost some of their appeal in the past decade but are situated at the end of the season; and would be a great stepping stone to a “relegation battle”. It would allow free agent riders to remain at the top level, instead of having so few places for so many riders, which would allow for better sporting contests. I love it as an idealistic concept. (Incidentally, the lack of places for riders won’t get any better if the new reforms come in for 2018, which limits teams to 22 riders instead of 30).

 

 However, the sport needs to change. Firstly, it needs teams to be recognisable brands (and devoted fans who will follow their team, regardless of which division they’re in); which will reduce the exposure and therefore sponsorship value for companies such as Movistar or Cannondale, who have had naming rights. Secondly, it needs money for promoted teams from the UCI to cover the potential shortfalls of getting to races around the globe. This and my previous point seem fairly mutually exclusive, which will be a serious problem that I don’t see being overcome anytime soon. Thirdly, the points system needs a major overhaul. Fortunately, the UCI is in the process of doing this now, and it is up to them to decide which direction the sport is heading in (as an elite set of teams; or a tiered system, which is looking the likely option for 2018). Fourth, the promoters and UCI need to play ball and be on the same page in terms of compromising wildcards on sporting merit and patriotic choices.

 

 So while I love the idea and the concept; maybe it is only appropriate for football. Cycling is still not a mainstream sport for too much of the world; and is not localised enough to cash in on the interest that it has in some areas (for example, Flanders or Brittany). It is in a transition between the two. Maybe one day a viable system will work, but for the moment, I think we should be happy to watch what teams we know have a secure budget competing against each other. The last thing that the sport needs is more elite teams withdrawing due to a lack of guaranteed exposure if a star rider is injured or ill for a big race that would have collected big points.

 

 And cycling itself doesn’t work like football – you can’t practically and economically hold qualifiers for the Tour in the same way UEFA does for the Champion’s League; and different riders target different races, rendering the WorldTour ranking a low priority for many riders and fans. So, a concept with a lot of merit, but one which sadly probably shouldn’t be implemented until the sport has a considerable amount of further money and popularity. Which is truly disappointing, because anyone who disputes the drama of a title or relegation battle need look no further than Manchester City at QPR in 2012. But then again, maybe a stage race unfolds in the same way and cycling fans are treated to several “title races” each year? Promotion system or not, I’ll still be watching.

 

The link to the original Al Hinds article is below:
http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/al-hinds/blog/129488/where-results-are-inconsequential-the-uci-worldtour

Reflections on the Australian Summer

2015, and February has rolled around. Which means the “Desert Races” in Qatar, Dubai and Oman; Track Worlds, and the NRS is soon to kick off again. The WorldTour teams have rolled away from Australia, but what conclusions can we draw?

1. Are the women generally more successful than Team Sky?

I could have included Lance in the header for this argument. After all, he did show up to one race a year far better “prepared” than anyone else. That (though without the drugs) is what Team Sky is trying to do now with their classics-specific and altitude training for the Tours, and racing by numbers and with fewer race days in preparation. Pick the targets for the riders throughout the year, boil cycling down to science, and turn up with the guy to beat. Except that so far (two Tour de France titles aside) that hasn’t worked. Zero Giri, zero Vuelta’s, zero Monuments.

Maybe the races aren’t as high profile, but January was an exhibition of ladies who hit their targets. Peta Mullens was selective in picking her Bay Criterium Series races, and walked off with a stage win a day after watching from the sidelines. Her plan was to do just one genuine road race for the year – she won it. Shara Gillow aimed at reclaiming the national TT title, and took it, without having raced the Bay Crits. In the Santos Women’s Tour, none of the stage winners had raced Nationals the week before (Hoskins had trained in Adelaide, while Bronzini and Scandolara were ineligible); while Annette Edmondson took the sprint jersey after her lead-up was in Tasmania, not Ballarat. And then Rachel Neylan took out the Cadel Evans Great Ocean Road Race (CEGORR) without having raced the Santos Women’s Tour. Is the old adage that “racing is the best training for racing” really true? Is it becoming less true? Is it something about the physiology of either recovery or training peaks that sets the women apart?

2. Greenedge’s diversity strategy is working…too well?

Without Simon Gerrans, Orica-Greenedge struggled a bit this summer. It took the class of Cameron Meyer and Caleb Ewan to break the team’s duck at the Herald Sun Tour. This was the first year though, that Matt White hadn’t listed the national road race as a priority (although naturally he still wanted to win it). Greenedge didn’t win it. Greenedge didn’t win a stage at the Tour Down Under (although Daryl Impey took the sprint jersey home), or the CEGORR. Is this a disaster? Should we panic? I’m willing to say no. Losing Gerrans (who hits his targets remarkably well, and who excels on the Ballarat course) was a big blow. Albasini is a similar type of rider to Gerrans; while there is much excitement over Matthews, the Yates twins, Esteban Chaves, and Magnus Cort. None of these riders raced in Australia, or (Albasini excepted) have celebrated a 25^th birthday. I’d expect to see much more of Orica-Greenedge throughout the year, far more than their January suggested. They should continue to be contenders in the Classics, and (right on White’s plan) soon in the Tours. Lacklustre January maybe, but they are still a good team with many more goals than the Australian summer.

3. The NRS is getting better.

My favourite race of the summer was the CEGORR, just pipping the National road race. What were the features? The attacking. Constant attacking. So many attacks. Granted, by the finale of the CEGORR, there were only a few NRS riders left in the second group, but all of the teams represented made their presence felt. The early break featured Budget, African Wildlife Safaris and Charter Mason; while Search2Retain and Avanti were marking the counter-attacks that were launched shortly afterwards. These are all riders who aren’t racing WorldTour or for the National team; yet were still willing and able to take on the bigger names.

Nationals was a little different in the sense that the domestic riders seemed to be attacking to isolate the WorldTour riders (notice I haven’t used the term “teams”) with a genuine view to winning. Upwards of 8 riders against 3 is always favourable; and there was no fear shown by the Australian-registered teams. If the NRS is made up of racing as aggressive as those two races, we’ll be in for a FANTASTIC spectacle. If the riders are as good as their January racing suggested, the future of Australian cycling is still bright. It’s a good time to start having nightly NRS highlights, that’s for sure!

4. Jack and Rohan’s hours

I think everyone feels for Jack Bobridge. His name was on everyone’s lips by the midway point of the Tour Down Under after his performance at Nationals and the stage to Campbelltown; but he fell just short of the Hour Record. His turnaround time might have been a factor, with merely a week between the TDU and his record attempt. By contrast, through January, Dennis just snuck up on everyone, never more so than on his climb to Paracombe, when the riders, spectators and commentators were too busy focussing on Cadel. Dennis then rode masterfully, picking the right wheels from that point on, and not “blowing up” on Willunga Hill in a vain pursuit of Richie Porte. Their January rides were prophetic for their Hour Record attempts. Bobridge went out on the attack straight away and made a phenomenal statement about his ability, before he ultimately faded away; while Dennis rode a supremely controlled TDU and hour with the full background support of Team BMC.

5. Might is right

Once the break of 21 riders went away on Stage 1 of the Herald Sun Tour; the race was reduced to a select few who took time on the rest of the field. With 3 representatives from Orica-Greenedge (the only WorldTour team in the race), 4 from Avanti, and with Budget, Drapac, MTN-Qhubeka and United-Healthcare all represented, the race was never going to come back together. This meant that the suspense was dulled somewhat on the first full day of racing. Naturally, the race still had to be won from there, but with Orica controlling the front for Ewan and Meyer, any other overall winner was going to be a surprise, despite the best efforts of the Avanti Racing Team.

This raises a concern for the Herald Sun Tour. With only one WorldTour team present this year, the race was somewhat strangled. Is the solution to open it up to more WorldTour teams and reduce the number of local teams in the race for the sake of prestige and coverage? Is the solution to block Orica (Australia’s highest-profile team) from competing to allow a better contest that will probably have less public interest? Personally, I’d like to see 3 or 4 WorldTour teams who would make an interesting race, the mix of ProContinental teams such as those who took part this year, and then still have room for the local teams who can do their best to animate the race. Or, limit the number of riders per team. Fewer riders per team makes the race harder to control, after all.

In the Santos Women’s Tour, the control and dominance of Orica-AIS was also notable. Providing 3 stage wins out of 4, the race never really looked out of their control once Scandolara took the leader’s jersey by 6 seconds. This was partly due to the lack of time bonuses in what was a parcours unlikely to splinter the field into groups of 1’s and 2’s at the finish, but partly to the strength of Orica and Wiggle Down Under. The final criterium was nearly a procession as the two international teams organised at the front and strangled the race. This is far less of a concern than the men’s racing due to the inherently limited coverage of women’s racing – any double World Champions should be welcomed to our streets as often as possible!!

 

All of this leads me to be incredibly optimistic for the rest of the season ahead. The women now head to the NRS races (which are generally aggressive) or to Europe to take on Vos, Ferrand-Prevot and co. Orica-Greenedge should be firing again with Gerrans and Albasini in the classics and visible throughout the season. The NRS riders return on March 26 in Perth, with what is sure to be a strong field, new names to watch, and exciting racing. The Hour Record continues to gather momentum, and the anticipation of Wiggins, Martin or Phinney trying to topple Dennis’ mark is mouth-watering. Meanwhile, once the European season starts, so many of the WorldTour teams are strong that we probably won’t see too many races under total control. 2015 is going to be a good year of cycling, I can’t wait!!

If I Were a Team UniSA-Australia 2015 Selector....

Well, the Road Nationals have been completed for another year. And I couldn't be happier about the results. Steele von Hoff, Peta Mullens, Heinrich Haussler; they are all extremely nice people whose road careers have had their setbacks. The green and gold jerseys are a wonderful result for all of them, and hopefully will lead to greater opportunities on the road.

 

Steele von Hoff atop the Criterium National Championships podium
Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6vXX5GCMAAyHpr.jpg:large

 

The attention of the Australian cycling fan now turns to the Tour Down Under though. One of the biggest questions for me is the composition of the UniSA-Australia team. Previous riders have included Allan Davis, Michael Rogers, Pat Jonker, and more recently, Rohan Dennis and Caleb Ewan. The opportunities are there for riders to get results and be noticed. The team is usually geared towards young riders gaining exposure to the WorldTour level, but in the case of Davis in 2008 (who finished second overall after entering the last stage looking for time bonuses), also for a rider without a WorldTour ride to remind everyone that they can contend at the highest level. So, who would I select, and why?

 

First name on my team list is Steele von Hoff. Fresh from winning the national criterium championship, and riding this year for British squad NFTO; this is a guy who can handle his bike, beat riders in form in a power sprint, and hold his own on short climbs (having led the bunch home in the road race). Plus, there is the added value of WorldTour experience (the Garmin set-up), which means that he can hold his own against the top guys, and will probably help the younger guys on their learning curve.

 

The second thing I would do would be to call Jack Bobridge and offer him a ride. He may turn it down due to his impending Hour Record attempt and any preparation specific to that; but I would make the call nonetheless. Bobridge is another rider in form, who finished third in the time trial at Nationals, and was a big player in the road race; also with WorldTour experience. Added to all of that, he will gain phenomenal support from the home crowd, and would most likely love racing in his home city again.

 

Those are my two big names, and I'll leave space for 5 National Road Series riders. First of them is definitely Jack Haig. The Victorian has signed a pre-contract with Orica-Greenedge, and will join them in 2016. As the defending Young Rider classification winner from 2014, he should warrant selection on that basis alone. Added to that though, Haig has plenty of results at NRS level, and despite not placing highly, rode well as a marked man in the national Under-23 road race. A good climber and (judging by his 2014 TDU result) a savvy tactician, he has to be a good chance to repeat his Young Rider victory.

 

Neil van der Ploeg is another name that was on the UniSA roster last year, and I would invite him back this year. A good lead-out man or a good sprinter in his own right, as third in the national road race indicates. Van der Ploeg didn't pick up a result at the TDU last year, but with a year's extra experience and coming into form nicely, I would certainly include him in my team.

 

Next on my team sheet would be Miles Scotson, based mostly on his National Championships performance. A track national and world champion, he is a rider who dominated both the road race and time trial at under-23 level last week. A strong rider, and another who will love riding in front of home crowds. I would task him with being present in breakaways, with a view to the King of the Mountains title, if such an opportunity presented itself. Otherwise, his week would be comparing himself  to the best, and developing as a cyclist. It would be a big step, but I believe this is a young rider who can make that jump.

 

The last two riders (tasked with attacking, attacking, and attacking some more) are Ben Hill and Cameron Bayly. These two lit up the national criterium championships with their daring breakaway that came within half a lap of succeeding. Hill attacked, Bayly bridged, and no lesser name than Michael Rogers eventually came across to help them. Hill is coming back from a doping suspension that ended in October, after a mix-up regarding a product given to him by a team-mate; and has started his return to racing very aggressively, taking two stages on his way to 8th overall at the Tour of Southland late in 2014, and being omni-present in the Bay Cycling Classic races, as well as the national criterium championship.

 

Bayly is (another!) local South Aussie who has raced at Continental level, and would relish the opportunity to ride hard against the best in the world in front of home fans. This may come as a surprise selection; because he skipped the Bay Cycling Classic and the national time trial, and didn't show himself in the national road race, and therefore hasn't been in public consciousness. However, 14th place, climbing with the Evans and Porte group - along with his attack in the crits - shows that he is a rider who is coming into form nicely, and is my dark horse to infiltrate breaks.

 

I believe this team is a combination of youth and experience, and full of riders who will be hungry to show that they can compete with the best. This group would be present in the breaks (Scotson, Hill and Bayly), contesting the sprints (van der Ploeg and von Hoff), contending the Young Rider classification (Haig, maybe Scotson), and potentially challenging for the General Classification (Bobridge). Added to their varied skills, this is a group of riders who have been both leaders and workhorses for their teams, and therefore should be happy to ride for each other, which in turn should form a happy, cohesive, aggressive and under-rated team. The epitome of the traditional character of the UniSA-Australia team.